Vasectomy occlusion techniques for male sterilization

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Vasectomy is an increasingly popular and effective family planning method. A variety of vasectomy techniques are used worldwide including various vas occlusion techniques (excision and ligation, thermal or electrocautery, and mechanical and chemical occlusion methods), vas irrigation and fascial interposition. Vasectomy guidelines largely rely on information from observational studies. Ideally, the choice of vasectomy techniques should be based on the best available evidence from randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness, safety, acceptability and costs of vasectomy techniques for male sterilization. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the computerized databases the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Popline and LILACS. In addition, we searched the reference lists of relevant articles and book chapters. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials comparing vasectomy techniques. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed all titles and abstracts located in the literature searches and two reviewers independently extracted articles identified for inclusion. Data were presented in the text of the review. Outcome measures include contraceptive efficacy, safety, discontinuation, and acceptability. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials compared vas occlusion with clips versus a conventional vasectomy technique; both were of poor quality. Neither trial found a difference between the two groups with regard to the primary outcome of failure to reach azoospermia. Four trials examined vas irrigation: three compared water irrigation with no irrigation and one compared water irrigation with euflavine. All of the trials were of poor quality. None of the trials found a significant difference between the groups with respect to the primary outcome of time to azoospermia. However, one trial found that the median number of ejaculations to azoospermia was significantly lower in the euflavine group compared to the water irrigation group. The one trial that compared vasectomy with fascial interposition versus vasectomy without fascial interposition was a high quality, large study that has only been partially reported at the time of this review. The fascial interposition group was significantly more likely to be related to vasectomy success (azoospermia) at 22 weeks. However, fascial interposition also was associated with significantly more surgical difficulties. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: No conclusions can be made about the effectiveness, safety, acceptability and costs of vas occlusion technique or vas irrigation as studies that examined these were of low quality and underpowered. Fascial interposition is associated with improved vasectomy success but is associated with some increased surgical difficulty. Randomized controlled trials examining other vasectomy techniques were not available. More research is required to examine vasectomy techniques.