Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Vasectomy and Vasectomy Reversals—a Review of the Current Literature

  • Published:
Current Sexual Health Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of review

Vasectomy is a commonly performed outpatient procedure for male contraception with high success and low failure rates. Vasectomy reversal permits couples desiring the ability to conceive naturally after vasectomy to avoid assisted reproductive technology in many cases. Our review discusses current and emerging vasectomy and vasectomy reversal practices, techniques, and outcomes.

Recent Findings

Various vasectomy techniques have been utilized for vas isolation and occlusion, most notably the no-scalpel vasectomy with intraluminal cauterization and fascial interposition. There are few comparative studies between vasectomy techniques, making it difficult to determine the optimal operative approach. Overall compliance rates with post-vasectomy semen analyses are low, complicating study of vasectomy success rates. The most common methods for reversal include vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy, each with their own range of techniques. With recent technological advancements, many novel approaches and tools have been employed to improve patency and pregnancy success such as robotic techniques and anti-fibrotic agents. In addition, there are many patient and partner factors that can affect vasectomy and vasectomy reversal outcomes. Vasectomy reversals need to be approached algorithmically with outcomes assessed based on technique and time since vasectomy.

Summary

Further research across multiple institutions is needed comparing outcomes of novel vasectomy and vasectomy reversal to traditional approaches. Emerging non-surgical options for male contraception will play an important role in the practice of urologists in future years.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Schwingl PJ, Guess HA. Safety and effectiveness of vasectomy. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(5):923–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ostrowski KA, Holt SK, Haynes B, Davies BJ, Fuchs EF, Walsh TJ. Evaluation of vasectomy trends in the United States. Urology. 2018;118:76–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Trussell J, Lalla AM, Doan QV, Reyes E, Pinto L, Gricar J. Cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States. Contraception. 2009;79(1):5–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Patel RD, Loloi J, Labagnara K, Watts KL. Search trends signal increased vasectomy interest in states with sparsity of urologists after overrule of Roe vs. Wade J Urol. 2022;208(4):759–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hendry WF. Vasectomy and vasectomy reversal. Br J Urol. 1994;73(4):337–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sharlip ID. What is the best pregnancy rate that may be expected from vasectomy reversal? J Urol. 1993;149(6):1469–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Haws JM, Morgan GT, Pollack AE, Koonin LM, Magnani RJ, Gargiullo PM. Clinical aspects of vasectomies performed in the United States in 1995. Urology. 1998;52(4):685–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Holt BA, Higgins AF. Minimally invasive vasectomy. Br J Urol. 1996;77(4):585–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Auyeung AB, Almejally A, Alsaggar F, Doyle F. Incidence of post-vasectomy pain: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(5)1788. This study compares the non-scalpel vasectomy technique to the traditional scalpel approach for vasectomy. They found that the incidence of post-vasectomy pain was three times higher following the traditional approach, suggesting that non-scalpel vasectomy has a lower pain burden for the patient.

  10. Labrecque M, Dufresne C, Barone MA, St-Hilaire K. Vasectomy surgical techniques: a systematic review. BMC Med. 2004;2:21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Castillo Jimeno JM, Santiago González A, Rodríguez Pérez MJ, QuelAlzueta N, Ruiz Rubio JL, Antón López MJ, et al. Unique incision vasectomy: review of 1,800 cases. Arch Esp Urol. 1992;45(1):63–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Barone MA, Irsula B, Chen-Mok M, Sokal DC. Effectiveness of vasectomy using cautery. BMC Urol. 2004;4:10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Sokal D, Irsula B, Chen-Mok M, Labrecque M, Barone MA. A comparison of vas occlusion techniques: cautery more effective than ligation and excision with fascial interposition. BMC Urol. 2004;4(1):12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Sokal D, Irsula B, Hays M, Chen-Mok M, Barone MA. Vasectomy by ligation and excision, with or without fascial interposition: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN77781689]. BMC Med. 2004;2:6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Altok M, Şahin AF, Divrik RT, Yildirim U, Zorlu F. Prospective comparison of ligation and bipolar cautery technique in non-scalpel vasectomy. Int Braz J Urol. 2015;41(6):1172–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Munro NP, Kotwal S, Gogoi NK, Weston PM, Browning AJ, Harrison SC, et al. Fulguration of the lumen does not improve vasectomy sterilization rates. BJU Int. 2009;104(3):371–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sharlip ID, Belker AM, Honig S, Labrecque M, Marmar JL, Ross LS, et al. Vasectomy: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2012;188(6 Suppl):2482–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dohle GR, Diemer T, Kopa Z, Krausz C, Giwercman A, Jungwirth A. European Association of Urology guidelines on vasectomy. Actas Urol Esp. 2012;36(5):276–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sivardeen KA, Budhoo M. Post vasectomy analysis: call for a uniform evidence-based protocol. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2001;83(3):177–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Dhar NB, Bhatt A, Jones JS. Determining the success of vasectomy. BJU Int. 2006;97(4):773–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. McMartin C, Lehouillier P, Cloutier J, Singbo N, Labrecque M. Can a low sperm concentration without assessing motility confirm vasectomy success? A retrospective descriptive study. J Urol. 2021;206(1):109–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Labrecque M, Hays M, Chen-Mok M, Barone MA, Sokal D. Frequency and patterns of early recanalization after vasectomy. BMC Urol. 2006;6:25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Jamieson DJ, Costello C, Trussell J, Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, Peterson HB. The risk of pregnancy after vasectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103(5 Pt 1):848–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Labrecque M, Hoang DQ, Turcot L. Association between the length of the vas deferens excised during vasectomy and the risk of postvasectomy recanalization. Fertil Steril. 2003;79(4):1003–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Jee SH, Hong YK. One-layer vasovasostomy: microsurgical versus loupe-assisted. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(6):2308–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lipshultz LI, Rumohr JA, Bennett RC. Techniques for vasectomy reversal. Urol Clin North Am. 2009;36(3):375–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dickey RM, Pastuszak AW, Hakky TS, Chandrashekar A, Ramasamy R, Lipshultz LI. The evolution of vasectomy reversal. Curr Urol Rep. 2015;16(6):40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Herrel LA, Goodman M, Goldstein M, Hsiao W. Outcomes of microsurgical vasovasostomy for vasectomy reversal: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Urology. 2015;85(4):819–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Yahyazadeh SR, Sadighi Gilani MA, Karimi A. Vasectomy reversal: unilateral versus bilateral vasovasostomy. Andrologia. 2021;53(9):e14178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Fuchs ME, Anderson RE, Ostrowski KA, Brant WO, Fuchs EF. Pre-operative risk factors associated with need for vasoepididymostomy at the time of vasectomy reversal. Andrology. 2016;4(1):160–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Chan PT. The evolution and refinement of vasoepididymostomy techniques. Asian J Androl. 2013;15(1):49–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Grober ED, Jarvi K, Lo KC, Shin EJ. 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 

  35. Savage J, Manka M, Rindels T, Alom M, Sharma KL, Trost L. Reinforcing vasal suture technique improves sperm concentration and pregnancy rates in men undergoing vasovasostomy for vasectomy reversal. Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9(1):73–81. This study demonstrates a novel vasovasostomy technique which led to significantly higher sperm concentrations and pregnancy rates compared to traditional approach. In addition, it was a significant predictor of success, even after controlling for preoperative and intraoperative variables.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Li P, Zhi EL, Yao CC, Xia SJ, Li Z. A novel approach: successful management of vasectomy reversal with a three-dimensional digital image microscope system. Asian J Androl. 2021;23(1):118–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Allameh F, Hosseini J, Qashqai H, Mazaherylaghab H. Efficacy of intraoperative Mitomycin-C in vasovasostomy procedure: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Fertil Steril. 2019;13(3):240–4.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Deck AJ, Berger RE. Should vasectomy reversal be performed in men with older female partners? J Urol. 2000;163(1):105–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Hinz S, Rais-Bahrami S, Kempkensteffen C, Weiske WH, Schrader M, Magheli A. Fertility rates following vasectomy reversal: importance of age of the female partner. Urol Int. 2008;81(4):416–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kapadia AA, Anthony M, Martinez Acevedo A, Fuchs EF, Hedges JC, Ostrowski KA. Reconsidering vasectomy reversal over assisted reproduction in older couples. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(6):1020–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Fuchs EF, Burt RA. Vasectomy reversal performed 15 years or more after vasectomy: correlation of pregnancy outcome with partner age and with pregnancy results of in vitro fertilization with intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2002;77(3):516–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Nusbaum DJ, Marks SF, Marks MBF, Burrows PJ, Zollman R, Samplaski MK. The effect of male age over 50 years on vasectomy reversal outcomes. Urology. 2020;145:134–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 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 

  45. Kolettis PN, Sabanegh ES, D’Amico AM, Box L, Sebesta M, Burns JR. Outcomes for vasectomy reversal performed after obstructive intervals of at least 10 years. Urology. 2002;60(5):885–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 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 

  47. Ostrowski KA, Polackwich AS, Kent J, Conlin MJ, Hedges JC, Fuchs EF. Higher outcomes of vasectomy reversal in men with the same female partner as before vasectomy. J Urol. 2015;193(1):245–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Chan PT, Goldstein M. Superior outcomes of microsurgical vasectomy reversal in men with the same female partners. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(5):1371–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Uvin V, De Brucker S, De Brucker M, Vloeberghs V, Drakopoulos P, Santos-Ribeiro S, et al. Pregnancy after vasectomy: surgical reversal or assisted reproduction? Hum Reprod. 2018;33(7):1218–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. van Dongen J, Tekle FB, van Roijen JH. Pregnancy rate after vasectomy reversal in a contemporary series: influence of smoking, semen quality and post-surgical use of assisted reproductive techniques. BJU Int. 2012;110(4):562–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Farber NJ, Flannigan R, Srivastava A, Wang H, Goldstein M. Vasovasostomy: kinetics and predictors of patency. Fertil Steril. 2020;113(4):774-80.e3. This article analyzed various factors that affect patency following a vasovasostomy. As patency is a desired outcome of vasovasostomy, this article identified ways to improve outcomes by finding any sperm intraoperatively.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Scovell JM, Mata DA, Ramasamy R, Herrel LA, Hsiao W, Lipshultz LI. Association between the presence of sperm in the vasal fluid during vasectomy reversal and postoperative patency: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urology. 2015;85(4):809–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Farber NJ, Flannigan R, Li P, Li PS, Goldstein M. The kinetics of sperm return and late failure following vasovasostomy or vasoepididymostomy: a systematic review. J Urol. 2019;201(2):241–50. There are few studies that study late re-canalization failure following vasovasostomy. This is one study that found late failure to be relatively common following vasectomy reversal and identified factors that may be predictive of recanalization.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Hollingsworth MR, Sandlow JI, Schrepferman CG, Brannigan RE, Kolettis PN. Repeat vasectomy reversal yields high success rates. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(1):217–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Lorenzini MS, Lorenzini F, Bezerra CA. Vasectomy re-reversal: effectiveness and parameters associated with its success. Int Braz J Urol. 2021;47(3):544–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Benger JR, Swami SK, Gingell JC. Persistent spermatozoa after vasectomy: a survey of British urologists. Br J Urol. 1995;76(3):376–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Kendrick JS, Gonzales B, Huber DH, Grubb GS, Rubin GL. Complications of vasectomies in the United States. J Fam Pract. 1987;25(3):245–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Awsare NS, Krishnan J, Boustead GB, Hanbury DC, McNicholas TA. Complications of vasectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2005;87(6):406–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Sokal D, McMullen S, Gates D, Dominik R. A comparative study of the no scalpel and standard incision approaches to vasectomy in 5 countries. The Male Sterilization Investigator Team. J Urol. 1999;162(5):1621–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Yang F, Li J, Dong L, Tan K, Huang X, Zhang P, et al. Review of vasectomy complications and safety concerns. World J Mens Health. 2021;39(3):406–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Seenu V, Hafiz A. Routine antibiotic prophylaxis is not necessary for no scalpel vasectomy. Int Urol Nephrol. 2005;37(4):763–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Chantarasak ND, Basu PK. Fournier’s gangrene following vasectomy. Br J Urol. 1988;61(6):538–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Kessler RB, Kimbrough RC 3rd, Jones SR. Infective endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus hominis after vasectomy. Clin Infect Dis. 1998;27(1):216–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Viddeleer AC, Lycklama à Nijeholt GA. Lethal Fournier’s gangrene following vasectomy. J Urol. 1992;147:1613–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Appell RA, Evans PR. Vasectomy: etiology of infectious complications. Fertil Steril. 1980;33(1):52–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Rayala BZ, Viera AJ. Common questions about vasectomy. Am Fam Physician. 2013;88(11):757–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Tan WP, Levine LA. An overview of the management of post-vasectomy pain syndrome. Asian J Androl. 2016;18(3):332–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Tandon S, Sabanegh E Jr. Chronic pain after vasectomy: a diagnostic and treatment dilemma. BJU Int. 2008;102(2):166–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Reynolds-Wright JJ, Anderson R. Male contraception: where are we going and where have we been? BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2019;45(4):236–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, NY, USA

    Alison E. Schulz & Mustufa Babar

  2. Department of Urology, New York University Langone Health, 555 Madison Avenue, Floor 2, New York, NY, 10022, USA

    Ari P. Bernstein & Valary Raup

  3. Department of Urology, Montefiore Medical Center, New York, USA

    Justin Loloi

Authors
  1. Alison E. Schulz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mustufa Babar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ari P. Bernstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Justin Loloi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Valary Raup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the literature review, organization, and writing of the primary text of the manuscript. Valary Raup, MD contributed to the organization and editing of the final manuscript text.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valary Raup.

Ethics declarations

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Male Sexual Dysfunction and Disorders

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schulz, A.E., Babar, M., Bernstein, A.P. et al. Vasectomy and Vasectomy Reversals—a Review of the Current Literature. Curr Sex Health Rep 15, 138–147 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-023-00364-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-023-00364-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation