Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39385913›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

A Scoping Review of the Clinical Utility of Laparoscopic Vasectomy.

Khang Duy Ricky Le, Annie Jiao Wang, Shasha Haycock, Matthew J Shears, Mark Forbes

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Khang Duy Ricky LeGeelong Clinical School, Deakin University School of Medicine, Geelong, AUS.
Annie Jiao WangDepartment of Surgery, Northeast Health Wangaratta, Wangaratta, AUS.
Shasha HaycockDepartment of Surgery, Northeast Health Wangaratta, Wangaratta, AUS.
Matthew J ShearsDepartment of Surgery, Northeast Health Wangaratta, Wangaratta, AUS.
Mark ForbesDepartment of Urology, Northeast Health Wangaratta, Wangaratta, AUS.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vasectomy is a common procedure performed for family planning. Traditionally, this has been via a scrotal approach. In contrast, laparoscopic vasectomy is a documented but rarely described procedure that may minimise anaesthetic risk, surgical risk, and healthcare expenditure in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic procedures for concurrent pathology such as hernia repair. This scoping review evaluates the clinical utility of laparoscopic vasectomy. It was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Articles were identified with keywords related to laparoscopy and vasectomy. Six peer-reviewed, full-text articles published in English were included in this review. These studies encompass eight individual patient cases of laparoscopic vasectomy performed in the 1990s and early 2000s. All the cases included laparoscopy for concurrent pathology, the most common of which was inguinal hernia. There were no complications associated with laparoscopic vasectomy. For patients requiring laparoscopic surgery for alternate pathologies, synchronous laparoscopic vasectomy improves surgical efficiency by minimising anaesthetic time, operative time, and risk, in addition to lower associated healthcare costs. However, consideration is given to the limitations of this approach, and a note is made of the lack of evidence regarding safety and efficacy given the paucity of cases described in the literature.

Indexed as

hernia repairlaparoscopic hernia repairlaparoscopic vasectomylaparoscopyvasectomy

Identifiers

PMID39385913
PMCPMC11464007

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.