ArticleJournal of Zhejiang University. Science. B
Clinical application of cross microsurgical vasovasostomy in scrotum for atypical obstructive azoospermia.
Article in Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Seminal duct obstruction may result in obstructive azoospermia (OA) and severe oligoasthenoteratozoospermia (OAT) (<0.5 million/mL) (Nordhoff et al., 2015). Cases of partial OA and OAT can be treated effectively by microsurgical anastomosis (Goldstein and Kim, 2013) to obtain successful surgical reversal. However, microsurgical vasovasostomy (VV) (Dickey et al., 2015) and vasoepididymostomy (VE) (Peng et al., 2017) are not suitable for patients with atypical OA and poor epididymis conditions or unpredictable obstruction of the distal vas deferens. For those patients, cross anastomosis may be applied instead of routine VE or VV. A single-center, retrospective, comparison study was conducted, which assessed the usefulness of the cross VV (CVV) in the scrotum for indication and efficacy. A total of 77 cases with OA or OAT were included, and 20 cases implemented cross anastomosis, including unilateral CVV (UCVV) in 4 cases, unilateral VE plus CVV (UVE+CVV) in 11 cases, and unilateral VV-based CVV (UVV+CVV) in 5 cases. The other 57 cases received no cross-matching anastomosis. The patency and natural pregnancy rates in one year were 75.0% and 50.0%, respectively, in the UCVV group; 54.5% and 27.3%, respectively, in the UVE+CVV group; and 60.0% and 40.0%, respectively, in the UVV+CVV group. The CVV in the scrotum in the selected patients with OA and severe OAT could yield good results. We regard the CVV in the scrotum as an efficacious operation with a lower risk of injury in cases of atypical OA.
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.