Document Detail

Scalpel versus no-scalpel incision for vasectomy.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  17054197     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
BACKGROUND: Currently, the two most common surgical techniques for approaching the vas during vasectomy are the incisional method and the no-scalpel technique. Whereas the conventional incisional technique involves the use of a scalpel to make one or two incisions, the no-scalpel technique uses a sharp-pointed, forceps-like instrument to puncture the skin. The no-scalpel technique aims to reduce adverse events, especially bleeding, bruising, hematoma, infection and pain and to shorten the operating time.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of the incisional versus no-scalpel vasectomy approach to the vas.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the computerized databases of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE and LILACS in May 2006. In addition, we searched the reference lists of relevant articles and book chapters.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials were included in this review. No language restrictions were placed on the reporting of the trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed all titles and abstracts located in the literature searches and two authors independently extracted data from the articles identified for inclusion. Outcome measures included safety, acceptability, operating time, contraceptive efficacy, and discontinuation.
MAIN RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials evaluated the no-scalpel technique and differed in their findings. The larger trial demonstrated less perioperative bleeding (Odds ratio (OR) 0.49; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.89) and pain during surgery (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93), scrotal pain (OR 0.63; 95% 0.50 to 0.80), and incisional infection (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.78) during follow up than the standard incisional group. Both studies found less hematoma with the no-scalpel technique (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.36). Operations using the no-scalpel approach were faster and had a quicker resumption of sexual activity. The smaller study did not find these differences; however, the study could have failed to detect differences due to a small sample size as well as a high loss to follow up. Neither trial found differences in vasectomy effectiveness between the two approaches to the vas.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The no-scalpel approach to the vas resulted in less bleeding, hematoma, infection, and pain as well as a shorter operation time than the traditional incision technique. Although no difference in effectiveness was found between the two approaches, the sample sizes might have been too small to detect actual differences. Additional well-conducted randomized trials would help answer this question.
L A Cook; A Pun; H van Vliet; M F Gallo; L M Lopez
Related Documents :
22329667 - The beneficial effect of hydroxyapatite lasts: a randomized radiostereometric trial com...
12076467 - Beta-lactam versus beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in cancer patients wi...
17054197 - Scalpel versus no-scalpel incision for vasectomy.
19419337 - Developments in antiplatelet therapy for acute coronary syndromes and considerations fo...
21889217 - Endoscopic balloon dilatation of esophageal strictures in children.
12901527 - Anterior spinal fusion with tsrh instrumentation for scoliosis.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural; Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.; Review     Date:  2006-10-18
Journal Detail:
Title:  The Cochrane database of systematic reviews     Volume:  -     ISSN:  1469-493X     ISO Abbreviation:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev     Publication Date:  2006  
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2006-10-20     Completed Date:  2007-01-19     Revised Date:  2013-06-28    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  100909747     Medline TA:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev     Country:  England    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  CD004112     Citation Subset:  IM    
Christchurch School of Medicine, Public Health and General Practice, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic
Hemorrhage / etiology
Intraoperative Complications / etiology
Surgical Instruments*
Vasectomy / methods*
Update In:
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):CD004112   [PMID:  17443540 ]

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Early enteral nutrition within 24h of colorectal surgery versus later commencement of feeding for po...
Next Document:  Interventions for treating chronic ankle instability.