Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T10:03:52.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 50 - Reversal of Sterilization in Females and Males to Restore Fertility

from Section 10 - Operative Gynaecology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2021

Tahir Mahmood
Affiliation:
Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy
Charles Savona-Ventura
Affiliation:
University of Malta, Malta
Ioannis Messinis
Affiliation:
University of Thessaly, Greece
Sambit Mukhopadhyay
Affiliation:
Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital, UK
Get access

Summary

When the desire to have a child no longer exists and the family is completed, women and men can opt for tubal sterilization or vasectomy as a definitive form of contraception. For the female partner it offers the opportunity that she can rely on a natural hormonal cycle without the need to use a hormonal or mechanical contraceptive method. Most frequently, due to changes in family situation, couples can regret the sterilization procedure and opt for another pregnancy. Because of proven fertility, pregnancy rates after microsurgical tubal anastomosis vary between 60% and 80%. Outcomes of vasovasostomy are quite variable, with patency rates ranging from 69.2% to 97.8% and pregnancy rates ranging from 36.8% to 92.5%. These results have to be balanced against the possibilities of artificial reproductive techniques. Factors influencing this decision are age, method of tubal sterilization, desire to have only one additional child and reimbursement in health insurance cases.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Steptoe, P. Laparoscopic tubal sterilization: a British viewpoint. IPPF Med Bull 1971;5:4.Google Scholar
Yoon, IB, Wheeless, CR Jr, King, TM. A preliminary report on a new laparoscopic sterilization approach: the silicone rubber band technique. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1974;120:132136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hulka, JF, Fishburne, JI, Mercer, JP, Omran, KF. Laparoscopic sterilization with a spring clip: a report of the first fifty cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1973;116:715718.Google Scholar
Bartz, D, Greenberg, JA. Sterilization in the United States. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2008;1:2332.Google ScholarPubMed
Hillis, SD, Marchbanks, PA, Tylor, LR, Peterson, HB. Poststerilization regret: findings from the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:889895.Google ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, JE, Hillis, SD, Marchbanks, PA, Jeng, G, Peterson, HB. Requesting information about and obtaining reversal after tubal sterilization: findings from the U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Fertil Steril 2000;74:892898.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegler, AM, Perez, RJ. Reconstruction of fallopian tubes in previously sterilized patients. Fertil Steril 1975;26:383392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winston, RML. Reversal of sterilization. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1980;23:12611268.Google Scholar
Gomel, V. An odyssey through the oviduct. Fertil Steril 1983;39:144156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gordts, S, Campo, R, Puttemans, P, Gordts, S. Clinical factors determining pregnancy outcome after microsurgical tubal reanastomosis. Fertil Steril 2009;92:11981202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donnez, J, Casanas-Roux, F, Ferin, J. Macroscopic and microscopic studies of fallopian tube after laparoscopic sterilization. Contraception 1979;20:497509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Seeters, JAH, Chua, SJ, Mol, BWJ, Koks, CAM. Tubal anastomosis after previous sterilization: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2017;23:358370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoon, TK, Sung, HR, Kang, HG, et al. Laparoscopic tubal anastomosis: fertility outcome in 202 cases. Fertil Steril 1999;72:11211126.Google Scholar
Koh, CH, Janik, GM. Laparoscopic microsurgery: current and future status. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1999;11:401407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dubuisson, JB, Chapron, C. Single suture laparoscopic tubal re-anastomosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1998;10:307313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Degueldre, M, Vandromme, J, Huong, PT, Cadiere, GB. Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a feasibility study. Fertil Steril 2000;74:10201023.Google Scholar
Caillet, M, Vandromme, J, Rozenberg, S, et al. Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a retrospective study. Fertil Steril 2010;94:18441847.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trimbos-Kemper, TC. Reversal of sterilization in women over 40 years of age: a multicenter survey in the Netherlands. Fertil Steril 1990;53:575577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, SH, Shin, CJ, Kim, JG, et al. Microsurgical reversal of tubal sterilization: a report on 1,118 cases. Fertil Steril 1997;68:865870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, W, Gordts, S, Buysse, K, Brosens, I. Reversibility after female sterilization. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986;93:839842.Google Scholar
Dubuisson, JB, Chapron, C, Nos, C, et al. Sterilization reversal: fertility results. Hum Reprod 1995;10:11451151.Google Scholar
Bergh, T, Ericson, A, Hillensjo, T, Nygren, KG, Wennerholm, UB. Deliveries and children born after in-vitro fertilisation in Sweden 1982–95: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 1999;354:15791585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chughtai, AA, Wang, AY, Hilder, L, et al. Gestational age-specific perinatal mortality rates for assisted reproductive technology (ART) and other births. Hum Reprod 2018;33:320327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Ziegler, D, Pirtea, P, Poulain, M, Vanlieferinghen, S, Ayoubi, JM. Time to think about neonatal outcome in assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 2018;109:789790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boeckxstaens, A, Devroey, P, Collins, J, Tournaye, H. Getting pregnant after tubal sterilization: surgical reversal or IVF? Hum Reprod 2007;22:26602664.Google Scholar
Messinger, LB, Alford, CE, Csokmay, JM, et al. Cost and efficacy comparison of in vitro fertilization and tubal anastomosis for women after tubal ligation. Fertil Steril 2015;104:3238.Google Scholar
Trussell, J, Hatcher, RA, Cates, W, et al. Contraceptive failure in the United States: an update. Stud Fam Plann 1990;21:5154.Google Scholar
Rungby, JA, Dahl, HB, Krogh, J, Kvist, E. [Vasectomy: who regrets it and why?]. Ugeskr Laeger 1994;156:23772380.Google Scholar
Dahm, F, Dahm, P, Dahm, J [Vasectomy today: a review of 1,275 vasectomies in 10 years]. Urologe A 2003;42:933939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patel, AP, Smith, RP Vasectomy reversal: a clinical update. Asian J Androl 2016;18:365371.Google ScholarPubMed
Valerie, U, De Brucker, S, De Brucker, M, et al. Pregnancy after vasectomy: surgical reversal or assisted reproduction? Hum Reprod 2018;33:12181227.Google Scholar
Dickey, RM, Pastuszak, AW, Hakky, TS, et al. The evolution of vasectomy reversal. Curr Urol Rep 2015;16:40.Google Scholar
Goldstein, M, Tanrikut, C. Microsurgical management of male infertility. Nat Clin Pract Urol 2006;3:381391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerrard, ER Jr, Sandlow, JI, Oster, RA, et al. Effect of female partner age on pregnancy rates after vasectomy reversal. Fertil Steril 2007;87:13401344.Google Scholar
Hinz, S, Rais-Bahrami, S, Kempkensteffen, C, et al. Fertility rates following vasectomy reversal: importance of age of the female partner. Urol Int 2008;81:416420.Google Scholar
Patel, AP, Smith, RP. Vasectomy reversal: a clinical update. Asian J Androl 2016;18:365371.Google ScholarPubMed
Belker, AM, Thomas, AJ Jr., Fuchs, EF, Konnak, JW, Sharlip, ID. Results of 1,469 microsurgical vasectomy reversals by the Vasovasostomy Study Group. J Urol 1991;145:505511.Google Scholar
Silber, SJ. Pregnancy after vasovasostomy for vasectomy reversal: a study of factors affecting long-term return of fertility in 282 patients followed for 10 years. Hum Reprod 1989;4:318322.Google Scholar
Boorjian, S, Lipkin, M, Goldstein, M. The impact of obstructive interval and sperm granuloma on outcome of vasectomy reversal. J Urol 2004;171:304306.Google Scholar
Magheli, A, Rais-Bahrami, S, Kempkensteffen, C, et al. Impact of obstructive interval and sperm granuloma on patency and pregnancy after vasectomy reversal. Int J Androl 2010;33:730735.Google Scholar
McMahon, AJ, Buckley, J, Taylor A, SN, et al. Chronic testicular pain following vasectomy. Br J Urol 1992;69:188191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith-Harrison, LI, Smith, RP. Vasectomy reversal for post-vasectomy pain syndrome. Transl Androl Urol 2017;6(Suppl 1):S10S13.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×