Ethan D. Grober

Introduction: During vasectomy reversal (VR), accurate intraoperative microscopic assessment of the vasal fluid for sperm presence and quality is essential in determining the indication for a vasovasostomy (VV) or vasoepididymostomy (VE). The use of testosterone therapy (TT), known to supress spermatogenesis, can potentially interfere with this determination. This initiative evaluated the impact of TT on vasal and epididymal fluid sperm characteristics and intraoperative decision-making among men on TT at the time of VR. Methods: Of 2622 consecutive VRs performed from 2007–2023, patients actively using TT at the time of VR were identified. Details as to the type, dose, and duration of TT were documented. All patients were counselled regarding the impact of TT on spermatogenesis and encouraged to discontinue TT if possible. During VR, vasal and epididymal fluid (as indicated) was sampled and each aspirate underwent microscopic evaluation for sperm presence and quality, and categorized as: motile sperm/intact-non-motile sperm/sperm parts/no sperm. Rates of sperm presence/absence in the vasal/epididymal fluid, frequency of VV/VE, postoperative patency (presence of motile sperm), and semen parameters were compared among patients on TT vs. clinically matched patients not using TT at the time of VR. Results: Among the 2622 VRs reviewed, 54 men (2%) reported using TT at the time of their VR. Despite its impact on spermatogenesis, intraoperative microscopic analysis of the reproductive fluid (vasal or epididymal) identified the presence of sperm in 95% (51/54) of patients. Testis biopsy confirmed sperm production among three patients with absence of sperm within the vasal or epididymal fluid. Rates of VV or VE did not significantly differ among men using TT at the time of VR compared to nonusers. Postoperative patency rates (TT: 78 % vs. no TT: 93%) and mean total motile sperm counts (TMC) were lower among patients using TT at the time of VR (7.9 vs. 28.3, p=0.02). Conclusions: Use of TT at the time of VR does not appear to impact rates of intraoperative microscopic identification of sperm within the reproductive fluid or the indication for VV/VE. Postoperative patency rates and total motile sperm counts may be lowered by use of TT. Moreover, the determination to the etiology azoospermia postoperatively (production vs. obstruction) may be clouded by the use of TT during VR.

Introduction: During vasectomy reversal (VR), intraoperative microscopic evaluation of the vasal fluid for sperm presence/quality can inform of the possibility of epididymal obstruction and need for a vasoepididymostomy (VE). In an effort to validate the utility of microscopic vasal fluid evaluation, the current initiative correlates gross vasal fluid characteristics with sperm presence and quality in a large series of VRs. Methods: A total of 1267 VRs yielded a total of 2522 vasal-units (right/left sides) for analysis. During VR, vasal fluid was sampled from the testicular-end vas and the fluid was characterized (thick-paste/opaque/translucent/clear). Each aspirate underwent microscopic evaluation for sperm quality and categorized as: motile sperm/intact-non-motile sperm/sperm parts/no sperm. The predictive utility of the gross vasal fluid characteristics with respect to microscopic sperm presence and quality was analyzed. Results: Among the 2522 vasal-units analyzed, the side-to-side (left-right) concordance of vasal fluid quality and microscopic vasal sperm quality was 72% and 52%, respectively. When thick-pasty fluid was observed, no sperm were seen in the samples in 53% of cases and if present, only non-motile sperm were observed. Even in the setting of more favorable vasal fluid characteristics (clear, translucent, and opaque fluid), no sperm were seen in 6–11% of cases, suggesting the possibility of epididymal obstruction and the need for VE. Conclusions: Intraoperative microscopic evaluation of the vasal fluid for sperm is a necessary practice during VR to optimize surgical outcomes. Reliance on gross vasal fluid characteristics in isolation may lead to unrecognized epididymal obstruction, and the need for a VE, in approximately 11% of cases.