Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic Vasectomy Reversal: An American Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Male Infertility

  • 1568 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter reviews the history of robotics in the field of microsurgery and the assessment and treatment of men in the United States who have undergone vasectomy and are interested in vasectomy reversal to reestablish fertility and to father children, as well as the application of robot assistance to this procedure. The role of robot assistance in vasectomy reversal is for the potential of replacing the operative microscope with potential advantages for the reproductive microsurgeon. For optimal outcomes with the application of the robotic platform to microsurgery, it is necessary to have a high level of training and skill in microsurgical techniques. A number of potential advantages may be gained by applying robotics to microsurgery including improved stability, decreased surgeon fatigue by improving ergonomics, removing the impact of a physiologic tremor, high-definition three-dimensional optics, scalability of motion, allowing the surgeon to control instrumentation with a camera and three microsurgical instruments concomitantly, foregoing the need for a specialty skilled microsurgical assistant, and the potential for improving operative times.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ASA:

Antisperm antibody

CT:

Computed tomography

FDA:

Food and Drug Administration

FSH:

Follicle-stimulating hormone

hCG:

Human chorionic gonadotropin

RAVE:

Robot-assisted vasoepididymostomy

RAVR:

Robot-assisted vasectomy reversal

RAVV:

Robot-assisted vasovasostomy

TURP:

Transurethral resection of prostate

VE:

Vasoepididymostomy

VR:

Vasectomy reversal

VV:

Vasovasostomy

References

  1. Vrijhof HJ, Delaere KP. Vasovasostomy results in 66 patients related to obstructive intervals and serum agglutinin titres. Urol Int. 1994;53(3):143–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sheynkin YR, et al. Microsurgical repair of iatrogenic injury to the vas deferens. J Urol. 1998;159(1):139–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Shin D, et al. Herniorrhaphy with polypropylene mesh causing inguinal vasal obstruction: a preventable cause of obstructive azoospermia. Ann Surg. 2005;241(4):553–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Twyman ED, Nelson CS. Vas deferens anastomosis: successful repair four years subsequent to bilateral vasectomy. Urol Cutan Rev. 1938;42(8):586–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Boyarsky S. Operating microscope for vasovasostomy. South Med J. 1973;66(3):302–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim HH, Goldstein M. History of vasectomy reversal. Urol Clin North Am. 2009;36(3):359–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Davies BL, et al. A surgeon robot prostatectomy – a laboratory evaluation. J Med Eng Technol. 1989;13(6):273–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Harris SJ, et al. The Probot – an active robot for prostate resection. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 1997;211(4):317–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schrader P. Technique evaluation for orthopedic use of Robodoc. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2005;143(3):329–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cadeddu JA, et al. A robotic system for percutaneous renal access. J Urol. 1997;158(4):1589–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cadeddu JA, et al. Stereotactic mechanical percutaneous renal access. J Endourol. 1998;12(2):121–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Su LM, et al. Robotic percutaneous access to the kidney: comparison with standard manual access. J Endourol. 2002;16(7):471–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schurr MO, et al. Robotics and telemanipulation technologies for endoscopic surgery. A review of the ARTEMIS project. Advanced Robotic Telemanipulator for Minimally Invasive Surgery. Surg Endosc. 2000;14(4):375–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Unger SW, Unger HM, Bass RT. AESOP robotic arm. Surg Endosc. 1994;8(9):1131.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Reichenspurner H, et al. Use of the voice-controlled and computer-assisted surgical system ZEUS for endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1999;118(1):11–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Parekattil SJ, Moran ME. Robotic instrumentation: evolution and microsurgical applications. Indian J Urol. 2010;26(3):395–403.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Himpens J, Leman G, Cadiere GB. Telesurgical laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 1998;12(8):1091.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gartner Hype Cycle. Gartner, Inc. 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.gartner.com/en/research/methodologies/gartner-hype-cycle.

  19. Middleton WD, et al. High-resolution sonography of the normal extrapelvic vas deferens. J Ultrasound Med. 2009;28(7):839–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sjostrand NO. The adrenergic innervation of the vas deferens and the accessory male genital glands. Acta Physiol Scand. 1965;65:7–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Macmillan EW. The blood supply of the epididymis in man. Br J Urol. 1954;26(1):60–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wosnitzer MS, Goldstein M. Relationship of sperm granuloma to obstructive interval and vasectomy reversal patency outcomes. Boston: American Society for Reproductive Medicine; 2013.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Vasectomy reversal. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(5 Suppl 1):S268–71.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Coward RM, et al. Vasectomy reversal outcomes in men previously on testosterone supplementation therapy. Urology. 2014;84(6):1335–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Shin YS, Kim SD, Park JK. Preoperative factors influencing postoperative results after vasovasostomy. World J Mens Health. 2012;30(3):177–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Magheli A, et al. Impact of obstructive interval and sperm granuloma on patency and pregnancy after vasectomy reversal. Int J Androl. 2010;33(5):730–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Grober ED, Karpman E, Fanipour M. Vasectomy reversal outcomes among patients with vasal obstructive intervals greater than 10 years. Urology. 2014;83(2):320–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hsiao W, et al. Nomograms to predict patency after microsurgical vasectomy reversal. J Urol. 2012;187(2):607–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fenig DM, et al. Nomogram to preoperatively predict the probability of requiring epididymovasostomy during vasectomy reversal. J Urol. 2012;187(1):215–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kavoussi PK, Bird ET. Validation of a vasoepididymostomy predictor model: is vasoepididymostomy truly predictable preoperatively? Fertil Steril. 2009;92(1):180–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Parekattil SJ, et al. Model to predict if a vasoepididymostomy will be required for vasectomy reversal. J Urol. 2005;173(5):1681–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Silber SJ. Microscopic vasoepididymostomy: specific microanastomosis to the epididymal tubule. Fertil Steril. 1978;30(5):565–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Thomas AJ Jr. Vasoepididymostomy. Urol Clin North Am. 1987;14(3):527–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kavoussi PK, et al. Factors impacting couples’ decision-making between vasectomy reversal versus sperm retrieval/in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Andrology. 2018;6(4):556–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Lemack GE, Goldstein M. Presence of sperm in the pre-vasectomy reversal semen analysis: incidence and implications. J Urol. 1996;155(1):167–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hsiao W, et al. Increased follicle-stimulating hormone is associated with higher assisted reproduction use after vasectomy reversal. J Urol. 2011;185(6):2266–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Thomas AJ Jr, et al. Microsurgical vasovasostomy: immunologic consequences and subsequent fertility. Fertil Steril. 1981;35(4):447–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Meinertz H, et al. Antisperm antibodies and fertility after vasovasostomy: a follow-up study of 216 men. Fertil Steril. 1990;54(2):315–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Fuchs EF, Alexander NJ. Immunologic considerations before and after vasovasostomy. Fertil Steril. 1983;40(4):497–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Parslow JM, et al. The effects of sperm antibodies on fertility after vasectomy reversal. Am J Reprod Immunol. 1983;3(1):28–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Collins JA, et al. Frequency and predictive value of antisperm antibodies among infertile couples. Hum Reprod. 1993;8(4):592–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Eggert-Kruse W, et al. Circulating antisperm antibodies and fertility prognosis: a prospective study. Hum Reprod. 1989;4(5):513–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Witkin SS, David SS. Effect of sperm antibodies on pregnancy outcome in a subfertile population. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988;158(1):59–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Menge AC, et al. The incidence and influence of antisperm antibodies in infertile human couples on sperm-cervical mucus interactions and subsequent fertility. Fertil Steril. 1982;38(4):439–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Grober ED, et al. Mini-incision vasectomy reversal using no-scalpel vasectomy principles: efficacy and postoperative pain compared with traditional approaches to vasectomy reversal. Urology. 2011;77(3):602–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Werthman P. Mini-incision microsurgical vasoepididymostomy: a new surgical approach. Urology. 2007;70(4):794–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Barazani Y, Kaouk J, Sabanegh ES Jr. Robotic intra-abdominal vasectomy reversal: a new approach to a difficult problem. Can Urol Assoc J. 2014;8(5–6):E439–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Trost L, et al. Intracorporeal robot-assisted microsurgical vasovasostomy for the treatment of bilateral vasal obstruction occurring following bilateral inguinal hernia repairs with mesh placement. J Urol. 2014;191(4):1120–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Smith RP, et al. The significance of sperm heads and tails within the vasal fluid during vasectomy reversal. Indian J Urol. 2014;30(2):164–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Kolettis PN, et al. Outcomes for vasovasostomy performed when only sperm parts are present in the vasal fluid. J Androl. 2006;27(4):565–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Belker AM, et al. Results of 1,469 microsurgical vasectomy reversals by the Vasovasostomy Study Group. J Urol. 1991;145(3):505–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Silber SJ. Microscopic vasectomy reversal. Fertil Steril. 1977;28(11):1191–202.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Hagan KF, Coffey DS. The adverse effects of sperm during vasovasostomy. J Urol. 1977;118(2):269–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kuang W, et al. Initial evaluation of robotic technology for microsurgical vasovasostomy. J Urol. 2004;171(1):300–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Schiff J, Li PS, Goldstein M. Robotic microsurgical vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy: a prospective randomized study in a rat model. J Urol. 2004;171(4):1720–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Kuang W, et al. Robotic-assisted vasovasostomy: a two-layer technique in an animal model. Urology. 2005;65(4):811–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Parekattil SJ, Atalah HN, Cohen MS. Video technique for human robot-assisted microsurgical vasovasostomy. J Endourol. 2010;24(4):511–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Kavoussi PK. Validation of robot-assisted vasectomy reversal. Asian J Androl. 2015;17(2):245–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Schmidt SS. Vas anastomosis: a return to simplicity. Br J Urol. 1975;47(3):309–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Goldstein M, Li PS, Matthews GJ. Microsurgical vasovasostomy: the microdot technique of precision suture placement. J Urol. 1998;159(1):188–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Patel SR, Sigman M. Comparison of outcomes of vasovasostomy performed in the convoluted and straight vas deferens. J Urol. 2008;179(1):256–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Sandlow JI, Kolettis PN. Vasovasostomy in the convoluted vas deferens: indications and outcomes. J Urol. 2005;173(2):540–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Lizza EF, et al. Transseptal crossed vasovasostomy. J Urol. 1985;134(6):1131–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Hamidinia A. Transvasovasostomy – an alternative operation for obstructive azoospermia. J Urol. 1988;140(6):1545–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Hollingsworth MR, et al. Repeat vasectomy reversal yields high success rates. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(1):217–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Paick JS, et al. Microsurgical vasovasostomy after failed vasovasostomy. J Urol. 2003;169(3):1052–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Elzanaty S, Dohle GR. Vasovasostomy and predictors of vasal patency: a systematic review. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2012;46(4):241–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Friedrich MG, et al. Success rates of two-layer, microsurgical vasovasostomy. Results from a patient questionnaire and comparison with one-layer technique. Aktuelle Urol. 2006;37(1):58–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Boorjian S, Lipkin M, Goldstein M. The impact of obstructive interval and sperm granuloma on outcome of vasectomy reversal. J Urol. 2004;171(1):304–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Gerrard ER Jr, et al. Effect of female partner age on pregnancy rates after vasectomy reversal. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(6):1340–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Kolettis PN, et al. Secondary azoospermia after vasovasostomy. Urology. 2005;65(5):968–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Kolettis PN, et al. Pregnancy outcomes after vasectomy reversal for female partners 35 years old or older. J Urol. 2003;169(6):2250–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Bernie AM, et al. Vasectomy reversal in humans. Spermatogenesis. 2012;2(4):273–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Hinz S, et al. Fertility rates following vasectomy reversal: importance of age of the female partner. Urol Int. 2008;81(4):416–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Schlegel PN, Goldstein M. Microsurgical vasoepididymostomy: refinements and results. J Urol. 1993;150(4):1165–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Chan PT, Brandell RA, Goldstein M. Prospective analysis of outcomes after microsurgical intussusception vasoepididymostomy. BJU Int. 2005;96(4):598–601.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Wagenknecht LV, Klosterhalfen H, Schirren C. Microsurgery in andrologic urology. I. Refertilization. J Microsurg. 1980;1(5):370–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Krylov VS, Borovikov AM. Microsurgical method of reuniting ductus epididymis. Fertil Steril. 1984;41(3):418–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Fogdestam I, Fall M, Nilsson S. Microsurgical epididymovasostomy in the treatment of occlusive azoospermia. Fertil Steril. 1986;46(5):925–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Schiff J, et al. Outcome and late failures compared in 4 techniques of microsurgical vasoepididymostomy in 153 consecutive men. J Urol. 2005;174(2):651–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Marmar JL. Modified vasoepididymostomy with simultaneous double needle placement, tubulotomy and tubular invagination. J Urol. 2000;163(2):483–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Kumar R, Mukherjee S, Gupta NP. Intussusception vasoepididymostomy with longitudinal suture placement for idiopathic obstructive azoospermia. J Urol. 2010;183(4):1489–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Berger RE. Triangulation end-to-side vasoepididymostomy. J Urol. 1998;159(6):1951–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Pasqualotto FF, et al. Fertility outcome after repeat vasoepididymostomy. J Urol. 1999;162(5):1626–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Kolettis PN, Thomas AJ Jr. Vasoepididymostomy for vasectomy reversal: a critical assessment in the era of intracytoplasmic sperm injection. J Urol. 1997;158(2):467–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Kavoussi PK, et al. Robot-assisted microsurgical vasovasostomy: the learning curve for a pure microsurgeon. J Robot Surg. 2019;13(3):501–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Matthews GJ, Schlegel PN, Goldstein M. Patency following microsurgical vasoepididymostomy and vasovasostomy: temporal considerations. J Urol. 1995;154(6):2070–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Reproductive Urology, Austin Fertility & Reproductive Medicine/Westlake IVF, Austin, TX, USA

    Parviz Keikhosrow Kavoussi

Authors
  1. Parviz Keikhosrow Kavoussi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. PUR Clinic, University of Central Florida (UCF), Clermont, FL, USA

    Sijo J. Parekattil

  2. ANDROFERT and State University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil

    Sandro C. Esteves

  3. Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Ashok Agarwal

1 Electronic Supplementary Material

Robot-assisted microsurgical vasovasostomy with a modified one-layer anastomosis performed through a small incision. (MP4 605357 kB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kavoussi, P.K. (2020). Robotic Vasectomy Reversal: An American Perspective. In: Parekattil, S., Esteves, S., Agarwal, A. (eds) Male Infertility. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32300-4_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32300-4_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-32299-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-32300-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation