Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42084662›Full record

ReviewWiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)2026

[Vasectomy reversal : Literature review].

Lisa Kollitsch, Carmen Pozo

Abstract readReviewEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 2026. 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

2 authors.

Lisa KollitschAbteilung für Urologie und Andrologie, Klinik Donaustadt, Langobardenstraße 122, 1220, Wien, Österreich. lisa.kollitsch@gesundheitsverbund.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2801-8985
Carmen PozoAbteilung für Urologie und Andrologie, Klinik Donaustadt, Langobardenstraße 122, 1220, Wien, Österreich.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vasectomy is a highly effective method of permanent male contraception but remains surgically reversible. Approximately 5-7% of men seek restoration of fertility, most commonly due to changes in life circumstances, while chronic post-vasectomy pain syndrome (PVPS) represents an additional indication. Microsurgical vasovasostomy (VVS) and vasoepididymostomy (VES) are the cornerstone procedures for restoring vasal continuity. The choice of technique is guided by intraoperative findings, particularly the quality of epididymal fluid and the presence of sperm. VES is more frequently required in cases of suspected epididymal obstruction, especially when the interval since vasectomy exceeds 10 years. Reported patency and pregnancy rates following VVS reach approximately 88% and 47%, respectively, whereas VES is associated with lower success rates (patency ~64%, pregnancy ~31%). Although emerging approaches such as robot-assisted microsurgery show promising early results, conventional microsurgery remains the current gold standard. Recent efforts to improve patient selection have led to the development of predictive scoring systems aimed at identifying individuals at risk of vasectomy regret and optimizing preoperative counseling.

Indexed as

VasovasostomyEpididymisHumansMaleMicrosurgeryPostoperative ComplicationsPregnancyRobotic Surgical ProceduresVas DeferensMale infertilityMicrosurgeryPost-vasectomy syndromeRefertilizationVasovasostomy

Identifiers

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.