Vaso-vasostomy and Epididymo-vasostomy
- 86 Downloads
Vaso-vasostomy (vas-vas.) and epididymo-vasostomy (ep-vas.) are the standard methods of joining parts of the male genital tract to overcome obstruction of the outflow from the testicles. Experience with vasectomy reversal has shown that, with a careful vas-vas. technique, very successful results can be obtained, restoring fertility in a high proportion of cases. With ep-vas., on the other hand, results have generally been rather poor, even discouraging. These two procedures are technically different, but it is probably a mistake to assume that failure after ep-vas. is necessarily due to surgical problems alone. Instead, the surgeon should consider the underlying pathological conditions that necessitated the operation, which are different in the various parts of the male genital tract, and which are probably more important as the fundamental causes of treatment failure.
KeywordsSperm Count Male Infertility Ejaculatory Duct Urologic Surgery Testicular Biopsy
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Dubin L, Amelar RD (1982) Epididymovasostomy. In: Garcia CR, Mastroianni L, Amelar RD, Dubin L (eds) Current therapy of infertility. BC Decker, Trenton, pp 77–79Google Scholar
- Jameson RM (1985) Infective causes of male infertility. In: Whitfield HN, Hendry WF (eds) Textbook of genitourinary surgery. Churchill Livingstone, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
- Rose NR, Lucas PL (1979) Immunological consequences of vasectomy. II. Two-year summary of prospective study. In: Lepow IH, Crozier R (eds) Vasectomy: immunologic and pathophysiologic effects in animals and man. Academic Press, New York, pp 533–560Google Scholar
- Schoysman R (1982) Epididymal causes of male infertility: pathogenesis and management. In: White R de V (ed) Aspects of male infertility. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, pp 233–249Google Scholar
- Silber SJ (1984) Microsurgical vasoepididymostomy. In: Silber SJ (ed) Reproductive infertility microsurgery in the male and female. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, pp 132–146Google Scholar