Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25980804›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2015

The evolution of vasectomy reversal.

Ryan M Dickey, Alexander W Pastuszak, Tariq S Hakky, Aravind Chandrashekar, Ranjith Ramasamy, Larry I Lipshultz

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. [Vasectomy reversal : Literature review].Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2026
    Review
  4. Vasectomy reversal: lessons learned to optimize clinical outcomes.International journal of impotence research · 2026
    Review
  5. Translational andrology and urology · 2026
    Article
  6. Vasectomy Procedures on the Rise in France From 2010 to 2022.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. A successful Vasovasostomy operation.Clinical case reports · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Vasoepididymostomy: an insight into current practice patterns.Translational andrology and urology · 2019
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Vasectomy reversal: a clinical update.Asian journal of andrology
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ryan M DickeyBaylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA, dickey@bcm.edu.
Alexander W Pastuszak
Tariq S Hakky
Aravind Chandrashekar
Ranjith Ramasamy
Larry I Lipshultz
Baylor College of Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the USA, about 500,000 vasectomies are performed each year, with up to 6% of men requesting reversal. The technique of vasectomy reversal has evolved from macrosurgical to the implementation of both microscopic and robotic technologies. The very earliest attempts at vasectomy reversal, the vasoepididymostomy and vasovasostomy, have remained central in the treatment of male infertility and will continue to be so for years to come. As seen throughout its history, urological microsurgery has consistently implemented advanced techniques and state-of-the art technology in its craft, and its continued refinement will allow for even more favorable outcomes in the lives of patients seeking restoration of fertility following vasectomy. Here, we review the evolution of vasectomy reversal and its current techniques.

Indexed as

VasectomyHumansInfertility, MaleMaleMicrosurgeryRobotic Surgical ProceduresVasovasostomy

Identifiers

PMID25980804
OpenAlexW236352026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.