Journals / Turkish Journal of Urology / 2020 / Cilt: 46 - Sayı: 5

Robot-assisted vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy: Current status and review of the literature

Pages
329–334
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Additional benefits of this technique include improved vision and movement precision.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Microscope-assisted vasovasostomy (MAVV) is a standard procedure used to reverse vasectomies.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We identified 2017 records through database search, and after removing duplicates, 782 records remained for further analysis.Results: In total, 12 human and three animal studies were selected.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Additional benefits of this technique include improved vision and movement precision.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: Microscope-assisted vasovasostomy (MAVV) is a standard procedure used to reverse vasectomies. Robotic surgery has been established primarily for technically demanding urological procedures and has also been recently implemented in male reproductive surgery. We aimed to review the current evidence of robot-assisted vasovasostomy (RAVV) and robot-assisted vasoepididymostomy (RAVE).Material and methods: We performed a systematic literature review using PubMed to identify relevant original articles. We identified 2017 records through database search, and after removing duplicates, 782 records remained for further analysis.Results: In total, 12 human and three animal studies were selected. Reported vasal patency rate ranges were 88%–100% for RAVVs and 55%–61% for RAVEs. The sperm count and postoperative pregnancy rates of RAVV ranged between 8.4 × 106–120 × 106 sperm/mL and 65%, respectively. Finally, procedure times in the human studies, recorded for extracorporeal RAVVs and RAVEs ranged from 97 to 238 minutes.Conclusion: Robot-assisted vasal reversal is feasible with similar patency rates as for the microsurgical approach and showing comparable outcomes. Additional benefits of this technique include improved vision and movement precision.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÖZEN, A. S., TOKAS, T., TAWFİCK, A., MAUSA, W., KOTB, M., TZANAKİ, E., RASSWEİLER, J. (2020). Robot-assisted vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy: Current status and review of the literature. Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 46 - Sayı: 5, 329–334. https://ajindex.com/articles/379570

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Dohle GR, Diemer T, Kopa Z, Krausz C, Giwercman A, Jungwirth A. European Association of Urology guidelines on vasectomy. Eur Urol 2012;61:159-63. [Crossref] 2. Hulka JF, Davis JE. Vasectomy and reversible vasocclusion. Fertil Steril 1972;23:683-96. [Crossref] 3. Silber SJ. Microsurgery in clinical urology. Urology 1975;6:150-3. [Crossref] 4. Fleming C. Robot-assisted vasovasostomy. Urol Clin North Am 2004;31:769-72. [Crossref] 5. Parekattil SJ, Gudeloglu A. Robotic assisted andrological surgery. Asian J Androl 2013;15:67-74. [Crossref] 6. Kuang W, Shin PR, Matin S, Thomas AJ, Jr. Initial evaluation of robotic technology for microsurgical vasovasostomy. J Urol 2004;171:300-3. [Crossref] 7. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924-6. [Crossref] 8. Schoor RA, Ross L, Niederberger C. Robotic assisted microsurgical vasal reconstruction in a model system. World J Urol 2003;21:48-9. [Crossref] 9. Schiff J, Li PS, Goldstein M. Robotic microsurgical vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy: a prospective randomized study in a rat model. J Urol 2004;171:1720-5. [Crossref] 10. Kuang W, Shin PR, Oder M, Thomas AJ, Jr. Robotic-assisted vasovasostomy: a two-layer technique in an animal model. Urology 2005;65:811-4. [Crossref] 11. De Naeyer G, Van Migem P, Schatteman P, Carpentier P, Fonteyne E, Mottrie A. Robotic assistance in urological microsurgery: initial report of a successful in-vivo robot-assisted vasovasostomy. J Robot Surg 2007;1:161-2. [Crossref] 12. Parekattil SJ, Atalah HN, Cohen MS. Video technique for human robot-assisted microsurgical vasovasostomy. J Endourol 2010;24:511-4. [Crossref] 13. Parekattil SJ, Gudeloglu A, Brahmbhatt J, Wharton J, Priola KB. Robotic assisted versus pure microsurgical vasectomy reversal: technique and prospective database control trial. J Reconstr Microsurg 2012;28:435-44. [Crossref] 14. Santomauro MG, Choe CH, L'Esperance JO, Auge BK. Robotic vasovasostomy: description of technique and review of initial results. J Robot Surg 2012;6:217-21. [Crossref] 15. Barazani Y, Kaouk J, Sabanegh ES, Jr. Robotic intra-abdominal vasectomy reversal: A new approach to a difficult problem. Can Urol Assoc J 2014;8:E439-41. [Crossref] 16. Gudeloglu A, Brahmbhatt JV, Parekattil SJ. Robotic microsurgery in male infertility and urology-taking robotics to the next level. Transl Androl Urol 2014;3:102-