ArticleCureus2024
Documented Paternity Despite Azoospermia Post-vasectomy.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vasectomy is a permanent and safe method of male contraception. One commonly used definition of success is azoospermia in one or two semen analyses after 20 ejaculates after three months. Failure is higher if less than 1.0 cm of vas deferens is removed or if a postsurgical infection occurs. There can be obvious social and legal consequences following a failed vasectomy and subsequent pregnancy. Paternity testing of the prospective father and child using automated DNA investigation employing amplified polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to compare short tandem repeat (STR) loci is accurate and readily available. A 32-year-old healthy male presented for elective sterilization after his wife delivered her third healthy full-term infant. The vasectomy was performed by ligation and excision as an outpatient. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. He had one semen analysis 48 days post-vasectomy that confirmed azoospermia. His wife conceived 119 days post-vasectomy, and he had two subsequent negative sperm counts. She delivered a full-term infant 385 days post-vasectomy. DNA paternity testing confirmed he was the father. Either the semen analysis was incorrect because of human error during the sperm count or small numbers of viable sperm were present despite reported preconception azoospermia. Human error is unlikely since all three tests were negative. This early failure probably does not represent recanalization but the transient release of sperm stored in the seminal vesicles or vas deferens. The time from vasectomy to laboratory-confirmed azoospermia varies. The time from vasectomy to functional azoospermia is not known, which is the reason for counseling about the risks of rare unexpected failures despite laboratory-confirmed azoospermia.
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.