リケラボ論文検索は、全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索できる論文検索サービスです。

リケラボ 全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索するならリケラボ論文検索大学・研究所にある論文を検索できる

リケラボ 全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索するならリケラボ論文検索大学・研究所にある論文を検索できる

大学・研究所にある論文を検索できる 「Microsurgical seminal reconstruction; our experiences in a single institute」の論文概要。リケラボ論文検索は、全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索できる論文検索サービスです。
リケラボ

コピーが完了しました

URLをコピーしました

論文の公開元へ論文の公開元へ
書き出し

Microsurgical seminal reconstruction; our experiences in a single institute

Hibi, Hatsuki Sugie, Miho Ohori, Tadashi Sonohara, Megumi Fukunaga, Noritaka Asada, Yoshimasa 名古屋大学

2020.08

概要

We assessed the contribution of microsurgical seminal reconstruction to achieving natural conception in conjunction with advanced assisted reproductive technologies. Ninety obstructive azoospermic subjects who underwent microsurgical seminal reconstruction were evaluated. Vasovasostomy (VV) was undertaken in 45 subjects whereas vasoepididymostomy (VE) in 45, respectively. VV was performed by employing a two microlayer anastomotic technique, whilst VE was undertaken using double needle longitudinal vaspepididymostomy (LIVE). Patency was achieved in 41 VV (91.1%), and 25 VE (55.6%) cases. In cases where patency was achieved, pregnancy and healthy delivery were recorded following natural intercourse in 7/41 (17.0%) VV, and in 7/25 (28.0%) VE cases. Where patency was not achieved, the use of cryopreserved sperm for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), resulted in a healthy delivery in 4/4 (100%) VV and 14/21 (66.6%) in VE subjects. Although natural pregnancy was achieved only in a limited number of subjects treated (14/90; 15.6%), sperm harvested during surgery and cryopreserved for future ICSI use proved valuable, doubling the overall delivery rate (32/90; 36.6%). Surgical intervention is considered to be a useful technique in order to allow the possibility of a natural conception and by harvesting sperm at the same time contributes to the cost-effectiveness.

論文の公開元へ

この論文で使われている画像

関連論文

関連論文をもっと見る

参考文献

1. Eisenberg ML, Lipshultz LI. Estimating the number of vasectomies performed annually in the United

States: data from the national survey of family growth. J Urol. 2010;184(5):2068–2072. DOI: 10.1016/j.

juro.2010.06.117.

2. Hibi H, Sumitomo M, Fukunaga N, Sonohara M, Asada Y. Superior clinical pregnancy rates after microsurgery epididymal sperm aspiration. Reprod Med Biol. 2017;17(1):59–63. DOI:10.1002/rmb2.12069.

3. Chan PT, Li PS, Goldstein M. Microsurgical vasoepididymostomy: a prospective randomized study of 3

intussusception techniques in rat. J Urol. 2003;169(5):1924–1929. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000059360.97108.

c4.

4. Taniguchi H, Iwamoto T, Ichikawa T, et al. Contemporary outcomes of seminal tract re-anastomoses for

obstructive azoospermia: a nationwide Japanese survey. Int J Urol. 2015;22(2):213–218. DOI: 10.1111/

iju.12631.

5. Matsuda T, Iwamoto T, Ito N, et al. Outcome of seminal tract anastomosis for obstructive azoospermia: a

multi-institutional study [in Japanese]. Jpn J Fertil Steril. 2000;45(2):143–149.

6. Belker AM, Thomas AJJr, Fuchs EF, Konnak JW, Sharlip ID. Results of 1469 microsurgical vasectomy reversals by the Vasovasostomy Study Group. J Urol. 1991;145(3):501–511. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)383817.

7. Hibi H, Yamada Y, Honda N, et.al. Microsurgical vasoepididymostomy with sperm cryopreservation for

future assisted reproduction. Int J Urol. 2000;7(12):435–439. DOI: 10.1046/j.1442-2042.2000.00226.x.

8. Boyle KE, Thomas AJ Jr, Marmar JL, Hirshberg S, Belker AM, Jarow JP. Sperm harvesting and cryopreservation during vasectomy reversal is not cost effective. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(4):961–964. DOI: 10.1016/j.

fertnstert.2005.09.031.

9. Glazier DB, Marmar JL, Mayer E, Gibbs M, Corson SL. The fate of cryopreserved sperm acquired during

vasectomy reversals. J Urol. 1999;161(2):463–466.

10. Silber SJ and Grotjan HE. Microscopic vasectomy reversal 30 years later: A summary of 4010 cases by

the same surgeon. J Androl. 2004;25:842–859. DOI: 10.1002/j.1939-4640.2004.tb03150.x

485

Microsurgical seminal reconstruction

11. Schrepferman CG, Carson MR, Sparks AET, Sandlow JI. Need for sperm retrieval and cryopreservation at

vasectomy reversal. J Urol. 2001;166(5):1787–1789.

12. Berardinucci D, Zimi A, Jarvi K. Outcome of microsurgical reconstruction in men with suspected epididymal

obstruction. J Urol. 1998;159(3):831–834.

13. Mastuda T, Horii Y, Muguruma K, Komatz Y, Yoshida O. Microsurgical epididymovasostomy for obstructive

azoospermia: factors affecting postoperative fertility. Eur Urol. 1994;26(4):322–326. DOI: 10.1159/000475408.

14. Silber SJ. Microscopic vasoepididymostomy: specific microanastomosis to the epididymal tubule. Fertil

Steril. 1978;30(5):565–571.

15. Berger RE. Triangulation end-to-side vasoepididymostomy. J Urol. 1998;159(6):1951–1953.

16. Hibi H, Ohori T, Amano T, et al. Clinical experience of vasoepididymostomy using a triangulation technique.

Reprod Med Biol. 2003;2(3):101–104. DOI: 10.1046/j.1445-5781.2003.00034.x.

17. Stefanovic KB, Clark SA, Buncke HJ. Microsurgical epididymovasostomy by tubule intussusception: a new

technique in rat model. Fertil Steril. 1991;55(1):189–193.

18. Marmar JL. Modified vasoepididymostomy with simultaneous double needle placement, tubulotomy and

tubular invagination. J Urol. 2000;163(2):483–486.

19. Chan PT, Brandell RA, Goldstein M. Prospective analysis of outcomes after microsurgical intussusception

vasoepididymostomy. BJU Int. 2005;96(4):598–601. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05691.x.

20. Schiff J, Chan P, Li PS, Finkelberg S, Goldstein M. Outcome and late failures compared in 4 techniques of

microsurgical vasoepididymostomy in 153 consecutive men. J Urol. 2005;174(2):651–655. DOI: 10.1097/01.

ju.0000165573.53109.92.

21. Shimpi RK, Raval KV, Patel DN. Modification of microsurgical longitudinal intussusception technique of

vaso-epididymal anastomosis: a single-center experience. Urol Ann. 2019;11(4):374–379. DOI: 10.4103/

UA.UA_90_18.

22. Yamamoto M, Katsuno S, Hibi H, Miyake K. Microscopic vasoepididymostomy for epididymal obstruction

of unknown etiology: experiences of ten cases. Jpn J Fertil Steril. 1995;40(4):458–462.

23. Berardinucci D, Zini A, Jarvi K. Outcome of microsurgical reconstruction in men with suspected epididymal

obstruction. J Urol. 1998;159(3):831–834.

24. Kim ED, Winkel E, Orejuela F, Lipschulz LI. Pathological epididymal obstruction unrelated to vasectomy:

results with microsurgical reconstruction. J Urol. 1998;160(6, Pt 1):2078–2080. DOI: 10.1097/00005392199812010-00037.

25. Chan PT, Brandell RA, Goldstein M. Prospective analysis of outcomes after microsurgical intussusception

vasoepididymostomy. BJU Int. 2005;96(4):598–601. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05691.x.

26. Fuchs EF, Burt RA. 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 Steril. 2002;77(3):516–519. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(01)03219-8.

...

参考文献をもっと見る

全国の大学の
卒論・修論・学位論文
を
一発検索！

この論文の関連論文を見る