Skip to main content
Article
Comparison of microscopic epididymal sperm aspiration and intracytoplasmic sperm injection/in-vitro fertilization with repeat microscopic reconstruction following vasectomy: is second attempt vas reversal worth the effort?
Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
  • J. F. Donovan, Jr.
  • M. DiBaise
  • Amy E.T. Sparks, University of Iowa
  • J. Kessler
  • J. I. Sandlow
Document Type
Article
Peer Reviewed
1
Publication Date
2-1-1998
NLM Title Abbreviation
Hum Reprod
PubMed ID
9557844
Abstract
Since 1986, we have performed microscopic reconstruction in 18 men following failed microscopic vasectomy reversal. Between 1994 and 1996, nine couples have undergone microscopic epididymal sperm aspiration (MESA)/ intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment for male infertility due either to congenital absence of the vas deferens (CAVD) or inoperable excurrent duct obstruction. We compared the cost efficiency of repeat vasectomy reversal to that for MESA combined with ICSI/in-vitro fertilization (ICSI/IVF). The cost of male partner procedures (vasectomy reversal, MESA) was based on physician and hospital charges, while the cost of ICSI/IVF included preparation of the female partner (medications and physician charges) and procedures (physician and hospital charges including oocyte retrieval, micromanipulation, and embryo transfer). Our cost examination does not include charges related to follow-up visits, prenatal monitoring, complications of pregnancy (i.e. miscarriage) or delivery in either group. Overall patency and pregnancy rates in the repeat vasectomy reversal group were 78 and 44% respectively. The cost per delivered baby (including multiple metachronos deliveries per couple) was $14892. Fertilization of oocytes has been achieved in 37/72 (51%) and pregnancies have occurred in 6/9 (67%) attempts and 5/9 (56%) report delivery. The average cost per pregnancy was $25637 and the average cost per delivered baby (or ongoing pregnancy) was $35570. The cost per delivery by MESA/ ICSI/IVF is 2.4 times the charges per delivery obtained through repeat vasectomy repair. Couples attempting to overcome infertility caused by vasal obstruction should be informed that vas reconstruction remains a cost effective means of re-establishing fertility even in men who have previously failed vasectomy reversal.
Keywords
  • Cost-Benefit Analysis,
  • Cytoplasm,
  • Epididymis/pathology,
  • Female,
  • Fertilization in Vitro/economics/methods,
  • Humans,
  • Infertility,
  • Male/surgery/therapy,
  • Male,
  • Microinjections,
  • Pregnancy,
  • Reoperation,
  • Spermatozoa,
  • Suction,
  • Vasovasostomy/economics/methods
Published Article/Book Citation
Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 13:2 (1998) pp.387-393.
Citation Information
J. F. Donovan, M. DiBaise, Amy E.T. Sparks, J. Kessler, et al.. "Comparison of microscopic epididymal sperm aspiration and intracytoplasmic sperm injection/in-vitro fertilization with repeat microscopic reconstruction following vasectomy: is second attempt vas reversal worth the effort?" Human reproduction (Oxford, England) Vol. 13 Iss. 2 (1998) p. 387 - 393 ISSN: 0268-1161
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/amy_sparks/56/