Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (23)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Donovan, J. F.
Right arrow Articles by Sandlow, J. I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Donovan, J. F., Jr
Right arrow Articles by Sandlow, J. I.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol 13, 387-393, Copyright © 1998 by Oxford University Press

ARTICLES

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?

JF Donovan Jr, M DiBaise, AE Sparks, J Kessler and JI Sandlow
Department of Urology, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA.

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.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
L. Garceau, J. Henderson, L.J. Davis, S. Petrou, L.R. Henderson, E. McVeigh, D.H. Barlow, and L.L. Davidson
Economic implications of assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review
Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2002; 17(12): 3090 - 3109.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.