You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Letter
Predictors of post-vasectomy semen analysis completion
  1. John Ernandez,
  2. Alexandra J Berger,
  3. Brittany D Berk,
  4. Catherine Gu,
  5. Alexander P Cole,
  6. Martin Kathrins
  1. Division of Urologic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Martin Kathrins, Division of Urologic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA; mkathrins{at}bwh.harvard.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2023-201878

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    The 2012 American Urological Association (AUA) Vasectomy Guidelines recommended cessation of alternate forms of contraception after demonstration of azoospermia, rare non-motile sperm (RNMS), or ≤100 000 non-motile sperm on a single post-vasectomy semen analysis (PVSA) performed 8–16 weeks after vasectomy.1 Despite these criteria being less restrictive than prior practice, patient completion of PVSAs under these new guidelines remains poor, with as many as half of men not returning for their first PVSA.2

    Accordingly, it remains imperative to better understand the factors that contribute to patient noncompliance. Prior studies on PVSA noncompliance do not explore how geographical barriers in returning samples impact completion,3 despite perceived inconvenience being cited by men as a barrier to completion.4 We performed a review of a contemporary, institutional cohort of patients that underwent vasectomy to investigate sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with failure to complete …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • JE and AJB contributed equally.

    • Contributors AJB and MK contributed to conception of this study. AJB, JE and MK contributed to performance of work. JE and AJB contributed to writing of the article. AJB, JE, BDB, CG, APC and MK all contributed to interpretation of data. All authors had access to the data used in this study.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.