A comparison of vas occlusion techniques: Cautery more effective than ligation and excision with fascial interposition

BMC Urology

Volumn 4, Issue , 2004, Pages 1-8

  Sokal, David ^a   Irsula, Belinda ^a   Chen Mok, Mario ^a   Labrecque, Michel ^b   Barone, Mark A ^c  

^a FAMILY HEALTH INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

^c ENGENDERHEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CAUTERIZATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE COURSE; DISEASE SEVERITY; EXCISION; FASCIA; HUMAN; LIGATION; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; OLIGOSPERMIA; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SEMEN ANALYSIS; SPERMATOZOON COUNT; SPERMATOZOON DENSITY; SURGEON; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT FAILURE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VASECTOMY; FOLLOW UP; METHODOLOGY; TIME;

CAUTERY; FASCIA; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; LIGATION; MALE; SPERM COUNT; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT FAILURE; VASECTOMY;

EID: 9144268562     PISSN: 14712490     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2490-4-12     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists: Male and Female Sterilization, Evidence-based Clinical Guideline No. 4 London: RCOG Press; 2004.
2. Goldstein M: Surgical management of male infertility and other scrotal disorders. In In Campbell's Urology 8th edition. Edited by: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED, Wein AJ. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company; 2002:1532-1587.
3. Schmidt SS: Vasectomy. Urol Clin North Am 1987, 14(1):149-54.
4. Sokal DC, Irsula B, Hays M, Chen-Mok M, Barone M: Vasectomy by ligation and excision, with or without fascial interposition: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Medicine 2004, 2:6.
5. Sokal DC, (Ed): Proceedings of an Expert Consultation on Vasectomy Effectiveness co-sponsored by Family Health International and Engender-Health: 18-19 April 2001 Durham. Durham, NC: Family Health International; 2001.
6. Barone MA, Irsula B, Chen-Mok M, Sokal D: Effectiveness of vasectomy using cautery. BMC Urology 2004, 4:10.
7. Chen-Mok M, Bangdiwala SI, Dominik R, Hays M, Irsula B, Sokal DC: Termination of a randomized controlled trial of two vasectomy techniques. Control Clin Trials 2003, 24(1):78-84.
8. Benger JR, Swami SK, Gingell JC: Persistent spermatozoa after vasectomy: a survey of British urologists. Br J Urol 1995, 76:376-379.
9. Hancock P, McLaughlin E: British Andrology Society guidelines for the assessment of post vasectomy semen samples (2002). J Clin Pathol 2002, 55:812-6.
10. Alderman PM: The lurking sperm: A review of failures in 8879 vasectomies performed by one physician. JAMA 1988, 259:3142-4.
11. Harris EK, Albert A: Survivorship Analysis for Clinical Studies New York: M. Dekker; 1991.
12. Wang D: Contraceptive failure in China. Contraception 2002, 66:173-8.
13. Nazerali H, Thapa S, Hays M, Pathak LR, Pandey KR, Sokal DC: Vasectomy effectiveness in Nepal: a retrospective study. Contraception 2003, 67(5):397-401.
14. Philp T, Guillebaud J, Budd D: Complications of vasectomy: review of 16,000 patients. Br J Urol 1984, 56(6):745-8.
15. Black T, Francome C: The evolution of the Marie Stopes electrocautery no-scalpel vasectomy procedure. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2002, 28:137-38.
16. Schmidt SS, Minckler TM: The vas after vasectomy: comparison of cauterization methods. Urology 1992, 40:468-70.
17. Li SQ, Xu B, Hou YH, Li CH, Pan QR, Cheng DS: Relationship between vas occlusion techniques and recanalization. Adv Contracept Deliv Syst 1994, 10(3-4):153-9.
18. Labrecque M, Dufresne C, Barone MA, St-Hilaire K: Vasectomy surgical techniques: a systematic review. BMC Med 2004, 2:21.