COMPARISON OF EFFECTIVENESS OF NO-SCALPEL VASECTOMY WITH FASCIAL INTERPOSITION OF THE STUMPS OF VAS WITH NON-INTERPOSITION
Journal Title: Journal of Evidence Based Medicine and Healthcare - Year 2017, Vol 4, Issue 29
BACKGROUND In contrast to female sterilisation in India, a very less percentage of the couples opt for male sterilisation. This is in spite of male sterilisation being a shorter, simpler procedure fraught with lesser complications, having a shorter recovery time and has less failure rate. The barriers to adoption of male sterilisation in India are profound with reasons ranging from unfounded fears among males characterising vasectomy with physical weakness, loss of virility, manhood and inability to enjoy intercourse. The aim of the study is to compare the effectiveness of No-scalpel vasectomy (NSV) with fascial interposition of the stumps of vas with non-interposition MATERIALS AND METHODS The study was conducted in the family planning unit of the Department of O & G, Govt. Medical College, Kottayam. The period of study was one year from November 2015 to October 2016. The number of vasectomies during this period was 46. Acceptors posted for vasectomy were divided into 2 groups on a one-to-one basis. Hence, 22 were without fascial interposition and 24 with fascial interposition of the stumps of vas. After the vas is excised to 1 cm, the ligature of the testicular end is cut. The cut ends are passed into the scrotum. The uncut ligature of the prostatic end is pulled out through the wound. With the dissecting forceps, the fascial sheath of the vas deferens is grasped. The fascial membrane is tied below the tie of the prostatic end and then the stump of the prostatic end is slipped back into the scrotum. Hence, the stump of the testicular end is inside the fascial sheath, while the prostatic end is outside. During followup, satisfaction with the procedure was measured on the following domains - pain involved, time required to return to work after the procedure, problems in sexual life, by a questionnaire. A semen analysis was also done after 3 months. RESULTS No significance in the acceptor’s satisfaction between the two groups in terms of pain, return to work or sexual life. No significant difference in the failure rates (p >0.05). CONCLUSION Both techniques of vasectomy had no significant difference. However, there was a slight increase in the operating time in the fascial interposition technique.
Authors and Affiliations
Ajay Kumar, Deepa Mathews
UNILATERAL SENSORINEURAL DEAFNESS IN SCHOOL CHILDREN; A CLINICAL AND AUDIOLOGICAL EVALUATION AT A TERTIARY HOSPITAL OF TELANGANA
INTRODUCTION Interpersonal communication, day to day activities, learning language and acquiring grades in the school are important parts in the life of school going children. Unilateral or bilateral Loss of hearing affe...
AIMS: To study the prevalence of the meibomian gland disease in type 2 diabetic patients and its clinical presentations. SETTING AND DESIGN: A hospital based cross sectional descriptive study of 100 type 2 diabetic patie...
IS MINIMAL INCISION THYROID SURGERY A BETTER ALTERNATIVE TO CONVENTIONAL AND ENDOSCOPIC THYROID SURGERY FOR SOLITARY THYROID NODULE?
The conventional technique of thyroidectomy for solitary thyroid nodule requires long skin incision, not satisfying patient and surgeon in terms of cosmesis and endoscopic thyroid surgery requires expertise. In our study...
BACKGROUND Most of intraocular surgeries are done under local anaesthesia. The peribulbar anaesthesia provides adequate anaesthesia and akinesia. There is no reported intraoperative and/or postoperative amaurosis. The pe...
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of ATP – sensitive potassium channel opener, nicorandil on insulin production in alloxan – induced diabetic rats. METHODS: In an attempt to ascertain the involvement of ATP sensitive pot...
How To Cite
Ajay Kumar, Deepa Mathews (2017). COMPARISON OF EFFECTIVENESS OF NO-SCALPEL VASECTOMY WITH FASCIAL INTERPOSITION OF THE STUMPS OF VAS WITH NON-INTERPOSITION. Journal of Evidence Based Medicine and Healthcare, 4(29), 1690-1694. https://europub.co.uk/articles/-A-217823