Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Past and Future Reversal Ideas

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Vasectomy Reversal

  • 237 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter will briefly cover some of the past attempts to improve reversals that have not been adopted such as laser-assisted reversals, the use of fibrin glue and intraluminal stents, the concerns over limited microsurgery training in urology residency programs, as well as ideas for future advances with reversals to include robotic-assisted vasectomy reversals, artificial intelligence, haptics, and remote reversals.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
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

References

  1. Lynne CM, Carter M, Morris J, Dew D, Thomsen S, Thomsen C. Laser-assisted vas anastomosis: a preliminary report. Lasers Surg Med. 1983;3(3):261–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rosemberg SK, Elson L, Nathan LE Jr. Carbon dioxide laser microsurgical vasovasostomy. Urology. 1985;25(1):53–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Weiner P, Finkelstein L, Greene CH, DeBias DA. Efficacy of the neodymium:YAG laser in vasovasostomy: a preliminary communication. Lasers Surg Med. 1987;6(6):536–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gilbert PT, Beckert R. Laser-assisted vasovasostomy. Lasers Surg Med. 1989;9(1):42–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Alefelder J, Philipp J, Engelmann UH, Senge T. Stented laser-welded vasovasostomy in the rat: comparison of Nd:YAG and CO2 lasers. J Reconstr Microsurg. 1991;7(4):317–20. discussion 321–2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Trickett RI, Wang D, Maitz P, Lanzetta M, Owen ER. Laser welding of vas deferens in rodents: initial experience with fluid solders. Microsurgery. 1998;18(7):414–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ho KL, Witte MN, Bird ET, Hakim S. Fibrin glue assisted 3-suture vasovasostomy. J Urol. 2005;174(4 Pt 1):1360–3. discussion 1363.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Busato WF Jr, Marquetti AM, Rocha LC. Comparison of vasovasostomy with conventional microsurgical suture and fibrin adhesive in rats. Int Braz J Urol. 2007;33(6):829–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bot GM, Bot KG, Ogunranti JO, Onah JA, Sule AZ, Hassan I, Dung ED. The use of cyanoacrylate in surgical anastomosis: an alternative to microsurgery. J Surg Tech Case Rep. 2010;2(1):44–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Machen, G, Kleinguetl C, Chen W, Bird E. Vasectomy reversal utilizing fibrin glue reinforcement: one institution’s experience. American Society of Andrology and European Academy of Andrology. Andrology, 2018, Supplement, 91. Poster 111.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Urry RL, Thompson J, Cockett AT. Vasectomy and vasovasostomy. II. A comparison of two methods of vasovasostomy: silastic versus chromic stents. Fertil Steril. 1976;27(8):945–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Flam TA, Roth RA, Silverman ML, Gagne RG. Experimental study of hollow, absorbable polyglycolic acid tube as stent for vasovasostomy. Urology. 1989;33(6):490–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Berger RE, Jessen JW, Patton DL, Bardin ED, Burns MW, Chapman WH. Studies of polyglycolic acid hollow self-retaining vasal stent in vasovasostomy. Fertil Steril. 1989;51(3):504–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rothman I, Berger RE, Cummings P, Jessen J, Muller CH, Chapman W. Randomized clinical trial of an absorbable stent for vasectomy reversal. J Urol. 1997;157(5):1697–700.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Vrijhof EJ, de Bruïne A, Lycklama à Nijeholt AA, Koole LH. A polymeric mini-stent designed to facilitate the vasectomy reversal operation. A rabbit model study. Biomaterials. 2004;25(4):729–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Vrijhof EJ, de Bruine A, Zwinderman A, Lycklama à Nijeholt AA, Koole L. New nonabsorbable stent versus a microsurgical procedure for vasectomy reversal: evaluating tissue reactions at the anastomosis in rabbits. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(3):743–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Safarinejad MR, Lashkari MH, Asgari SA, Farshi A, Babaei AR. Comparison of macroscopic one-layer over number 1 nylon suture vasovasostomy with the standard two-layer microsurgical procedure. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2013;16(3):194–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jeon JC, Kwon T, Park S, Park S, Cheon SH, Moon KH. Loupe-assisted Vasovasostomy using a prolene stent: a simpler vasectomy reversal technique. World J Mens Health. 2017;35(2):115–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Shessel FS, Lynne CM, Politano VA. Use of exteriorized stents in vasovasostomy. Urology. 1981;17(2):163–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Nyame YA, Babbar P, Almassi N, Polackwich AS, Sabanegh E. Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of modified 1-layer versus formal 2-layer vasovasostomy technique. J Urol. 2016;195:434–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ghayda RA, Bakare T, OHlander S, Pagani R, Niederberger C. Andrology/male infertility subspecialty exposure during U.S. based urology residency training. Poster presented at American Urological Association Annual meeting. San Francisco, California 18 May 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Chang KD, Raheem AA, Rha KH. Novel robotic systems and future directions. Indian J Urol. 2018;34(2):110–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nagler HM, Belletete BA, Gerber E, et al. Laparoscopic retrieval of retroperitoneal vas deferens in vasovasostomy for postinguinal herniorrhaphy obstructive azoospermia. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:1842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Matsuda T, Muguruma K, Hiura Y, et al. Seminal tract obstruction cause by childhood inguinal herniorrhaphy: results of microsurgical reanastomosis. J Urol. 1998;159:837–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Pasqualotto FF, Pasqualotto EB, Agarwal A, et al. Results of microsurgical anastomosis in men with seminal tract obstruction due to inguinal herniorrhaphy. Rev Hosp Clin Fac Med Sao Paulo. 2003;58:305–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kramer WC, Meacham RB. Vasal reconstruction above the internal inguinal ring: what are the options? J Androl. 2006;27:481–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Buch JP, Woods T. Retroperitoneal mobilization of the vas deferens in the complex vasovasostomy. Fertil Steril. 1990;54:931–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim A, Shin D, Martin TV, et al. Laparoscopic mobilization of the retroperitoneal vas deferens for microscopic inguinal vasovasostomy. J Urol. 2004;172:1948–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Etafy M, Gudeloglu A, Brahmbhatt JV, Parekattil SJ. Review of the role of robotic surgery in male infertility. Arab J Urol. 2017;16(1):148–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lotan Y. Is robotic surgery cost-effective: no. Curr Opin Urol. 2012;22(1):66–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Liberman D, Trinh QD, Jeldres C, Zorn KC. Is robotic surgery cost-effective: yes. Curr Opin Urol. 2012;22(1):61–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Parekattil SJ, Gudeloglu A, Brahmbhatt J, Wharton J, Priola KB. Robotic assisted versus pure microsurgical vasectomy reversal: technique and prospective database control trial. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2012;28(7):435–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kavoussi PK. Commentary on “validation of robot-assisted vasectomy reversal”. Asian J Androl. 2015;17(2):333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sangkum P, Yafi FA, Hellstrom WJG. Commentary on “validation of robot-assisted vasectomy reversal”. Asian J Androl. 2015;17(2):332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Saitz T, Acevedo AM, Bash J, Cunliffe J, Kilmek J, Ostrowksi K, Fuchs E, David L, Hedges, J. Vasal protein profile and microscopic sperm presence at time of vasectomy reversal. Poster presented at American Urological Association Annual meeting. San Francisco, California 18 May 2018.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Arizona College of Medicine, International Center Vasectomy Reversal, Tucson, AZ, USA

    Sheldon H. F. Marks

Authors
  1. Sheldon H. F. Marks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Marks, S.H.F. (2019). Past and Future Reversal Ideas. In: Vasectomy Reversal . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00455-2_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00455-2_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00454-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00455-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation