Produção Nacional
Revisado por pares
Multi-Institutional Validation of Vasectomy Reversal Predictor
2005; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 175; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1016/s0022-5347(05)00027-3
ISSN1527-3792
AutoresSijo Parekattil, Wayne Kuang, Peter N. Kolettis, Fábio Firmbach Pasqualotto, Patrick Telöken, Cláudio Telöken, Ajay K. Nangia, James A. Daitch, Craig Niederberger, Anthony J. Thomas,
Tópico(s)Sperm and Testicular Function
ResumoNo AccessJournal of UrologyAdult urology1 Jan 2006Multi-Institutional Validation of Vasectomy Reversal Predictor Sijo J. Parekattil, Wayne Kuang, Peter N. Kolettis, Fabio F. Pasqualotto, Patrick Teloken, Claudio Teloken, Ajay K. Nangia, James A. Daitch, Craig Niederberger, and Anthony J. Thomas Sijo J. ParekattilSijo J. Parekattil , Wayne KuangWayne Kuang , Peter N. KolettisPeter N. Kolettis , Fabio F. PasqualottoFabio F. Pasqualotto , Patrick TelokenPatrick Teloken , Claudio TelokenClaudio Teloken , Ajay K. NangiaAjay K. Nangia , James A. DaitchJames A. Daitch , Craig NiederbergerCraig Niederberger , and Anthony J. ThomasAnthony J. Thomas View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00027-3AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: Some urologists who perform vasectomy reversals are not experienced with performing VE. A model to preoperatively identify patients who may require referral to an experienced VE surgeon was created (www.uroengineering.com). We tested the model at multiple institutions. Materials and Methods: The model had previously been designed in 483 patients who underwent vasectomy reversal at 1 institution (100% sensitive and 59% specific for predicting the need for VE). It was based on time since vasectomy and patient age. We tested it prospectively in 33 patients and retrospectively in a total of 312 at 6 other institutions. The predictive accuracy of the model was compared to using a simple duration from vasectomy cutoff alone, as is used in clinical practice. Results: The model had 84% sensitivity and 58% specificity for detecting the need for VE in a total of 345 patients at 7 institutions. If using only a duration from vasectomy cutoff of 10 years to predict the need for VE, sensitivity was only 69%. At a cutoff of 4 years sensitivity was 99% but specificity was only 23%. Thus, the model performed better than any specific duration cutoff alone. Conclusions: The predictive model provides 84% sensitivity for detecting patients who may require VE during vasectomy reversal across 7 institutions (58% specificity). The model more accurately predicts the need for VE than using a specific duration from vasectomy cutoff alone. References 1 : Patient characteristics associated with vasectomy reversal. J Urol1999; 161: 1835. Link, Google Scholar 2 : Results of 1,469 microsurgical vasectomy reversals by the Vasovasostomy Study Group. J Urol1991; 145: 505. Link, Google Scholar 3 : Vasectomy and its reversal. Prim Care1985; 12: 703. Google Scholar 4 : Outcomes for vasectomy reversal performed after obstructive intervals of at least 10 years. Urology2002; 60: 885. Google Scholar 5 : Outcomes for vasovasostomy with bilateral intravasal azoospermia. J Androl2003; 24: 22. Google Scholar 6 : Vasectomy reversal performed 15 years or more after vasectomy: correlation of pregnancy outcome with partner age and with pregnancy results of in vitro fertilization with intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril2002; 77: 516. Google Scholar 7 : Reversal of vasectomy and the treatment of male infertility. Role of microsurgery, vasoepididymostomy, and pressure-induced changes of vasectomy. Urol Clin North Am1981; 8: 53. Google Scholar 8 : Model to predict if a vasoepididymostomy will be required for vasectomy reversal. J Urol2005; 173: 1681. Link, Google Scholar 9 : Artificial neural networks: opening the black box. Cancer2001; 91: 1615. Google Scholar Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, Conception-Center for Human Reproduction and University of Caxias Do Sul, Caxias Do Sul and Fundação Faculdade Federal de Ciências Médicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, Urology Associates of Phoenix, Phoenix, Arizona, and University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois© 2006 by American Urological AssociationFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByHsiao W, Goldstein M, Rosoff J, Piccorelli A, Kattan M, Greenwood E and Mulhall J (2018) Nomograms to Predict Patency After Microsurgical Vasectomy ReversalJournal of Urology, VOL. 187, NO. 2, (607-612), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2012.Yang G, Walsh T, Shefi S and Turek P (2018) The Kinetics of the Return of Motile Sperm to the Ejaculate After Vasectomy ReversalJournal of Urology, VOL. 177, NO. 6, (2272-2276), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2007. Volume 175Issue 1January 2006Page: 247-249 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2006 by American Urological AssociationKeywordsvasectomytestisforecastingvasovasostomyneural networks (computer)MetricsAuthor Information Sijo J. Parekattil More articles by this author Wayne Kuang More articles by this author Peter N. Kolettis More articles by this author Fabio F. Pasqualotto More articles by this author Patrick Teloken More articles by this author Claudio Teloken More articles by this author Ajay K. Nangia More articles by this author James A. Daitch More articles by this author Craig Niederberger More articles by this author Anthony J. Thomas More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...
Referência(s)