Conventional vasectomy
Two incisions, cut and remove a small segment of vas deferens. Seal all ends. This is probably the most performed version, and certainly the oldest. |
 |
- Widely practiced, hence a lot of experienced practitioners around
- Long term reliability established and post operation complications well known
- Easier to access the vas deferens, therefore post operation bruising may be less in some cases
|
 |
- Post operation infection is statistically more likely than NSV - 2 incisions instead of 1
- you get two scars instead of one. They aren't that noticeable anyway!
|
|
"No Scalpel" vasectomy (NSV)
Invented in China in 1974 to help popularise vasectomy, and introduced to the west in 1985. One midline incision made with a puncture tool, cut and remove a small segment of vas deferens. Seal all ends. Is probably performed more often that the conventional technique in the USA. |
|
- Widely practiced, hence a lot of experienced practitioners around
- Long term reliability established and post operation complications well known
- One midline incision made with a puncture tool
- Statistically lower rates of post operation infection
- Many doctors feel that recovery is quicker using this technique
|
|
- May cause more bruising and swelling in some cases if the vas deferens are difficult to access
|
|
"Open ended" vasectomy
Usually the same general technique as NSV, but the testicle ends are left open. The main feature of the technique is that statistically it may be less likely to lead to long term problems. |
|
- Long term problems appear to be reduced in the studies available
- Has been practiced for at least 20 years, so plenty of medical data available
- When combined with fascial interposition (using the spare tissue as a sheath over the prostatic ends) is as reliable as conventional vasectomy
|
|
- Not widely practiced
- Incidence of sperm granuloma increased
|
|
Marie Stopes vasectomy
Known as "Electrocautery no-scalpel vasectomy", or "Percutaneous Electrocoagulation Vasectomy technique". This technique is only practiced in MSI clinics in various countries. The difference between the MSI method and other techniques, is that the vas deferens is not cut - they use a cauterising tool to seal the vas deferens. |
|
- MSI claim it's marginally quicker to perform
- MSI claim that it's marginally quicker to heal, and return to work is faster
- Easy to perform with minimal equipment - was pioneered for developing countries
|
|
- Only data available is from MSI themselves
- Marginally less reliable than standard techniques
|
|
Vasclip
New variation on vasectomy, introduced to the US in April 2003. General technique very similar to NSV - the one difference being that the vas deferens is not cut. A small clip about the size of a grain of rice is clipped over the vas deferens to seal it. |
|
- Particularly appeals to men who wouldn't have conventional techniques, but want to be sterile
|
|
- Limited availability
- Hasn't been given regulatory authority outside the US at present
- No independent peer reviewed data available as yet
- Reliability as yet unproven
- Reversibility unknown. It's not a simple matter of removing the clip - conventional reversal techniques need to be used
- Please note that as of June 2007, the Vasclip website is no longer available, and they do not answer emails. The company appears to have folded.
|
|
