Skip to main content
PMC home page
Canadian Family Physician logoLink to Canadian Family Physician
. 1998 Sep;44:1860–1866.

Efficacité et complications associées à la vasectomie dans deux cliniques de la région de Québec.

Efficacy and complications associated with vasectomies in two clinics in the Quebec region

M Labrecque 1, L Bédard 1, L Laperrière 1
PMCID: PMC2277870  PMID: 9789666

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of, and complications associated with, vasectomies performed in two medical clinics. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A private medical clinic and a family planning clinic at a teaching hospital in the Quebec City region, where one doctor performs all surgery. PARTICIPANTS: The 1223 men who underwent a first vasectomy between January 1994 and February 1996. INTERVENTIONS: Isolations of the vas deferens through the scrotum was performed using the no-scalpel technique in both clinics. At the private clinic (n = 775), vasectomy was performed by ligature with tantalum clips. At the family planning clinic (n = 448), a combination of cauterisation of the abdominal end of the vas deferens, leaving the testicular end open, and fascial interposition with a clip was used. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of postoperative complications (painful granuloma; noninfectious inflammation of the vas deferens, epididymis, and testes; hematoma; infection; undiagnosed pain) and rate of recanalization (early and late). RESULTS: At the private clinic, 39 patients (5.0%) consulted for postoperative complications, compared with 55 patients (12.3%) at the family planning clinic (chi (2)1 = 21.0; P < 0.001). Of the patients who underwent semen analysis, 15 (2.8%) at the private clinic and 4 (1.2%) at the family planning clinic experienced early or late recanalization (chi (2)1 = 2.2; P < .14). CONCLUSION: The rate of consultation for postoperative complications was lower at the private clinic than at the family planning clinic, but the efficacy of the procedure appeared to be higher at the family planning clinic. The surgical techniques used at the two clinics might partially explain these differences.

Full text

PDF
1865

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Alderman P. M. Complications in a series of 1224 vasectomies. J Fam Pract. 1991 Dec;33(6):579–584. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Denniston G. C., Kuehl L. Open-ended vasectomy: approaching the ideal technique. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1994 Jul-Aug;7(4):285–287. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Denniston G. C. Vasectomy by electrocautery: outcomes in a series of 2,500 patients. J Fam Pract. 1985 Jul;21(1):35–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Errey B. B., Edwards I. S. Open-ended vasectomy: an assessment. Fertil Steril. 1986 Jun;45(6):843–846. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)49404-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Esho J. O., Cass A. S. Recanalization rate following methods of vasectomy using interposition of fascial sheath of vas deferens. J Urol. 1978 Aug;120(2):178–179. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)57094-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gupta A. S., Kothari L. K., Devpura T. P. Vas occlusion by tantalum clips and its comparison with conventional vasectomy in man: reliability, reversibility, and complications. Fertil Steril. 1977 Oct;28(10):1086–1089. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)42860-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Klapproth H. J., Young I. S. Vasectomy, vas ligation and vas occlusion. Urology. 1973 Apr;1(4):292–300. doi: 10.1016/0090-4295(73)90273-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Labrecque M. La vasectomie, une technique à la portée du médecin de famille. Can Fam Physician. 1987 Sep;33:2067–2071. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Li S. Q., Goldstein M., Zhu J., Huber D. The no-scalpel vasectomy. J Urol. 1991 Feb;145(2):341–344. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)38334-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Marquette C. M., Koonin L. M., Antarsh L., Gargiullo P. M., Smith J. C. Vasectomy in the United States, 1991. Am J Public Health. 1995 May;85(5):644–649. doi: 10.2105/ajph.85.5.644. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Moss W. M. A comparison of open-end versus closed-end vasectomies: a report on 6220 cases. Contraception. 1992 Dec;46(6):521–525. doi: 10.1016/0010-7824(92)90116-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Moss W. M. A sutureless technic for bilateral partial vasectomy. Fertil Steril. 1972 Jan;23(1):33–37. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)38706-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Moss W. M. Sutureless vasectomy, an improved technique: 1300 cases performed without failure. Fertil Steril. 1976 Sep;27(9):1040–1045. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Reynolds R. D. Vas deferens occlusion during no-scalpel vasectomy. J Fam Pract. 1994 Dec;39(6):577–582. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Schmidt S. S. Prevention of failure in vasectomy. J Urol. 1973 Feb;109(2):296–297. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)60408-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Schmidt S. S. Vasectomy by section, luminal fulguration and fascial interposition: results from 6248 cases. Br J Urol. 1995 Sep;76(3):373–375. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Skriver M., Skovsgaard F., Miskowiak J. Conventional or Li vasectomy: a questionnaire study. Br J Urol. 1997 Apr;79(4):596–598. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1997.00390.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Canadian Family Physician are provided here courtesy of College of Family Physicians of Canada

RESOURCES