Commentary on “validation of robot-assisted vasectomy reversal” by Dr. Parviz K Kavoussi

The author should be commended for this early work on the reproducibility and application of robotic assisted microsurgery for vasectomy reversal.1 Initial prospective randomized control studies by Schiff et al.2 in a rodent model illustrated potential advantages to the use of robotics in microsurgery in terms of increased surgical efficiency and a decreased surgical learning curve. A follow-up prospective cohort trial by our group continued to show evidence of such advantages in the clinical setting in a single surgeon experience.3 There have been small clinical series reports from other institutions as well. Robotic-assisted vasectomy reversal is in its infancy and more comparative studies from other institutions are very beneficial in truly assessing the value of such techniques. Dr. Kavoussi's work in this manuscript adds valuable assessment data to continue our journey in exploring potential benefits or disadvantages of this technology.1 As more robotic platforms become available and as the technology evolves, it is likely that the application and use of such technology will only continue to expand further. If we can use this technology to allow urologists to become more proficient micro surgeons in a shorter and more efficient pathway compared with traditional pure microsurgery, it is our patients and the general community who benefits in the end. This ultimately is our most noble goal.