Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32787873›Full record

ArticleBMC urology2020

A modified single-armed microsurgical vasoepididymostomy for epididymal obstructive azoospermia: intraoperative choice and postoperative consideration.

Nachuan Liu, Peng Li, Erlei Zhi, Chencheng Yao, Chao Yang, Liangyu Zhao, Ruhui Tian, Huixing Chen, Yuhua Huang, Yuexin Yu and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nachuan LiuDepartment of Andrology, the Center for Men's Health, Urologic Medical Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200080, China.
Peng LiDepartment of Andrology, the Center for Men's Health, Urologic Medical Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200080, China.
Erlei ZhiDepartment of Andrology, the Center for Men's Health, Urologic Medical Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200080, China.
Chencheng YaoDepartment of Andrology, the Center for Men's Health, Urologic Medical Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200080, China.
Chao YangDepartment of Andrology, the Center for Men's Health, Urologic Medical Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200080, China.
Liangyu ZhaoDepartment of Andrology, the Center for Men's Health, Urologic Medical Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200080, China.
Ruhui TianDepartment of Andrology, the Center for Men's Health, Urologic Medical Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200080, China.
Huixing ChenDepartment of Andrology, the Center for Men's Health, Urologic Medical Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200080, China.
Yuhua HuangDepartment of Andrology, the Center for Men's Health, Urologic Medical Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200080, China.
Yuexin YuAnhui Medical University, Hefei, 230032, China.
Zheng LiDepartment of Andrology, the Center for Men's Health, Urologic Medical Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200080, China. lizhengboshi@sjtu.edu.cn.
Shanghai First People's Hospital · CNShanghai Jiao Tong University · CNAnhui Medical University · CN

Funding

Medical-Engineering(Science) cross-Research Fund of Shanghai Jiao Tong University YG2017ZD04National Natural Science Foundation of China 81701524National Natural Science Foundation of China 81871215Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences XDA16020701
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate the clinical outcomes and the duration required for the sperm to return to the ejaculate after a modified single-armed 2-suture longitudinal intussusception vasoepididymostomy (SA-LIVE).

methodsFrom March 2015 to December 2018, 134 patients with epididymal obstruction azoospermia underwent the modified single-armed vasoepididymostomy at Shanghai General Hospital. The outcomes and clinical findings were documented and evaluated. The mean follow-up period was 17 (range: 3-36) months.

resultsPatency was assessed by the return of sperm in the ejaculate. The overall patency rate was 55.2%, and the patency rates were 58.9, 40.7, 36.4, and 58.9% for bilateral surgery, unilateral surgery, proximal anastomosis, and distal anastomosis, respectively. The average time to achieve patency was 4.11 ± 2.74 months. In the first 6 months, 87.8% (65/74) patency patients reported sperm in the ejaculate. The overall pregnancy rate was 40.9% (29/66) at the follow-up of 3-36 months, and the natural pregnancy rate was 30.3% (20/66). The natural pregnancy rate was 32.1% post-bilateral surgery and 33.3% for the site of distal anastomosis; surprisingly, it was 0% for the site of proximal anastomosis.

conclusionModified SA-LIVE is safe and may achieve favorable patency and pregnancy rates. When double-armed sutures are not accessible, single-armed may be preferable. The expected patency time was within 1 year. Moreover, because of the low natural pregnancy rate for proximal anastomosis, sperm banking is preferred to SA-LIVE.

Indexed as

AdultAnastomosis, SurgicalAzoospermiaEpididymisFemaleHumansIntraoperative PeriodMaleMicrosurgeryMiddle AgedPregnancyPregnancy RateProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUrologic Surgical Procedures, MaleVas DeferensMale infertilityObstructive azoospermiaPatencyPregnancyVasoepididymostomy

Identifiers

PMID32787873
PMCPMC7424978
OpenAlexW3048553268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.