ArticleAsian journal of andrology
Validation of robot-assisted vasectomy reversal.
Article in Asian journal of andrology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic-assisted microsurgery in andrology: a systematic review.Asian journal of andrology · 2023Pooled it
- Robot-assisted vasovasostomy for vasectomy reversal: long-term outcomes from a high-volume tertiary centre.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Technologies to improve sperm retrieval in men undergoing micro-TESE for NOA.Asian journal of andrology · 2025Review
- Techniques in urology - Tension-relieving microdot vasovasostomies and longitudinal intussuscepted vasoepididymostomy vasectomy reversals A first report.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2025Article
- The Renaissance of Male Infertility Management in the Golden Age of Andrology.The world journal of men's health · 2023Review
- Is There Room for Microsurgery in Robotic Surgery?Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2022Article
- Robot-assisted vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy: Current status and review of the literature.Turkish journal of urology · 2020Review
- Artificial intelligence in reproductive medicine.Reproduction (Cambridge, England) · 2019Review
- Robot-assisted microsurgical vasovasostomy: the learning curve for a pure microsurgeon.Journal of robotic surgery · 2019Article
- Vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy: Review of the procedures, outcomes, and predictors of patency and pregnancy over the last decade.Reproductive medicine and biology · 2018Review
- Review of the role of robotic surgery in male infertility.Arab journal of urology · 2018Review
- Robot-assisted microsurgery for chronic orchialgia.Translational andrology and urology · 2017Review
- Perinatal Outcomes Using Ejaculate versus Surgical Sperm Retrieval in Patients Undergoing Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection for Male Infertility - A Retrospective Analysis of 628 Cycles.Journal of human reproductive sciencesArticle
- Commentary on "validation of robot-assisted vasectomy reversal".Asian journal of andrologyArticle
- Vasectomy reversal: a clinical update.Asian journal of andrologyReview
- Commentary on "validation of robot-assisted vasectomy reversal" by Dr. Parviz K Kavoussi.Asian journal of andrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vasectomy reversal (VR) has traditionally been performed with the operative microscope. Recently, robot assistance has been applied to VR. Retrospective chart review from a single VR center included men who underwent either robot-assisted VR (RAVR) or microsurgical VR (MVR) by a single fellowship trained microsurgeon between 2011 and 2013 and had a 6 weeks postoperative semen analysis. Fifty-two men who were interested in VR were counseled and given the option of RAVR versus MVR. Twenty-seven men elected to have MVR while 25 men elected RAVR. These included vasovasostomies and vasoepididymostomies in both groups, as well as redo VRs in men who had failed previous VR attempts by other surgeons. There was no statistically significant difference between the microsurgical group and the robot-assisted group, respectively, in overall patency rates (89% vs 92%), 6 weeks post-VR mean sperm concentrations (28 million ml-1 vs 26 million ml-1 ) or total motile counts (29 million vs 30 million), or mean operative times (141 min vs 150 min). There was a statistically significant difference in anastomosis time (64 min vs 74 min), however, clinically this only represented a 10 min longer anastomosis time in the early robotic experience, which was found to be decreasing as the case series continued. Transitioning from MVR to RAVR is feasible with comparable outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.