Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Vasectomy with vessel sealing device: comparison of different diameters

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 31, pages 20–24 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objectives

Vasectomy is a popular and effective male surgical contraceptive method. Different techniques have been proposed to reduce failure rates and complications. In this study, we sought to compare vas deferens occlusion rates using both standard occlusion techniques and LigaSure (LSVS) for vasectomy.

Material and methods

A total of nine patients underwent open radical retropubic prostatectomy at our institution. During the procedure, a total of 125 fresh vas deferens samples were obtained and divided into four groups as follows: Group 1: ligation (n = 22), Group 2; ligation and electrocauterization (n = 18), Group 3; 5 mm LSVS (n = 44), Group 4; 10 mm LSVS (n = 41). All specimens were harvested during surgery and subsequent histopathological assessments were performed to assess the luminal status of the vas deferens.

Results

Histopathological evaluation revealed that the majority of vas lumens with LSVS (79.5% of Group 3 and 89.4% of Group 4) were totally occluded. With standard techniques, however, the majority of vas lumens (86.4 and 77.8% of Groups 1 and 2, respectively) maintained a tiny patency.

Conclusions

On histopathological review, the application of LSVS resulted in better occlusion rates, compared to standard ligation methods. These findings suggest a higher occlusive role for LSVS for vasectomy. Further clinical studies are needed to confirm the clinical efficacy and safety of this technique.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sharlip ID, Belker AM, Honig S, Labrecque M, Marmar JL, Ross LS, et al. Vasectomy: AUA Guideline. J Urol. 2012;188:2482–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ostrowski KA, Holt SK, Haynes B, Davies BJ, Fuchs EF, Walsh TJ. Evaluation of vasectomy trends in the United States. Urology. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.03.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cook LA, Van Vliet HA, Lopez LM, Pun A, Gallo MF. Vasectomy occlusion techniques for male sterilization. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003991.pub4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jamieson DJ, Costello C, Trussell J, Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, Peterson HB, et al. The risk of pregnancy after vasectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:848–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Philp T, Guillebaud J, Budd D. Complications of vasectomy: review of 16,000 patients. Br J Urol. 1984;56:745–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Schwingl PJ, Guess HA. Safety and effectiveness of vasectomy. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:923–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Alderman PM. The lurking sperm. A review of failures in 8879 vasectomies performed by one physician. JAMA. 1988;259:3142–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kakitelashvili V, Thompson J, Balaji KC. Laparoscopic vasectomy: case report and review of the literature. J Endourol. 2002;16:105–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Labrecque M, Hays M, Chen-Mok M, Barone MA, Sokal D. Frequency and patterns of early recanalization after vasectomy. BMC Urol. 2006;6:25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Harold KL, Pollinger H, Matthews BD, Kercher KW, Sing RF, Heniford BT. Comparison of ultrasonic energy, bipolar thermal energy, and vascular clips for the hemostasis of small-, medium-, and large-sized arteries. Surg Endosc. 2003;17:1228–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hefni MA, Bhaumik J, El-Toukhy T, Kho P, Wong I, Abdel-Razik T, et al. Safety and efficacy of using the LigaSure vessel sealing system for securing the pedicles in vaginal hysterectomy: randomised controlled trial. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;112:329–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Heniford BT, Matthews BD, Sing RF, Backus C, Pratt B, Greene FL. Initial results with an electrothermal bipolar vessel sealer. Surg Endosc. 2001;15:799–801.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Landman J, Kerbl K, Rehman J, Andreoni C, Humphrey PA, Collyer W, et al. Evaluation of a vessel sealing system, bipolar electrosurgery, harmonic scalpel, titanium clips, endoscopic gastrointestinal anastomosis vascular staples and sutures for arterial and venous ligation in a porcine model. J Urol. 2003;169:697–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Leonardo C, Guaglianone S, De Carli P, Pompeo V, Forastiere E, Gallucci M. Laparoscopic nephrectomy using Ligasure system: preliminary experience. J Endourol. 2005;19:976–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Metzelder ML, Kübler J, Petersen C, Glüer S, Nustede R, Ure BM. Laparoscopic nephroureterectomy in children: a prospective study on Ligasure versus Clip/Ligation. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2006;16:241–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Novitsky YW, Rosen MJ, Harrell AG, Sing RF, Kercher KW, Heniford BT. Evaluation of the efficacy of the electrosurgical bipolar vessel sealer (LigaSure) devices in sealing lymphatic vessels. Surg Innov. 2005;12:155–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sokal D, Irsula B, Hays M, Chen-Mok M, Barone MA, Investigator Study Group. Vasectomy by ligation and excision, with or without fascial interposition: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN77781689]. BMC Med. 2004;2:6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Medical Faculty of Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Vahit Guzelburc, Murat Can Kiremit, Mustafa Yucel Boz, Rahim Horuz, Selcuk Guven & Selami Albayrak

  2. Department of Urology, Adana Cukurova Askim Tufekci State Hospital, Adana, Turkey

    Caner Baran

  3. Department of Urology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA

    Faysal A. Yafi & Wayne J. G. Hellstrom

  4. Department of Pathology, Medical Faculty of Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Asli Cakir

Authors
  1. Vahit Guzelburc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caner Baran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Faysal A. Yafi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Asli Cakir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Murat Can Kiremit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mustafa Yucel Boz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rahim Horuz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Selcuk Guven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Wayne J. G. Hellstrom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Selami Albayrak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vahit Guzelburc.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guzelburc, V., Baran, C., Yafi, F.A. et al. Vasectomy with vessel sealing device: comparison of different diameters. Int J Impot Res 31, 20–24 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-018-0066-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-018-0066-y

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links