The Effect of Vasectomy on the Sexual Life of Couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are several contraceptive methods to prevent pregnancy, reversible as well as nonreversible ones. The sexual satisfaction of couples is affected by many types of contraceptives used. AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate prospectively the effect of vasectomy on the sexual life and satisfaction of couples. METHODS: Seventy-six couples took part in this evaluation and filled out respective questionnaires before and after vasectomy. All the questionnaires were evaluated statistically for differences in the respective sexual domain scores. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Standardized questionnaires were used. The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) as well as postoperative pain score were completed by men. Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) was completed by the female partner. For statistical analysis, the T-Square Test was used. RESULTS: The average age of couples, who chose the vasectomy procedure, was 37 years for women and 39 years for men. The contraception method most frequently used prior to the vasectomy was the birth control pill. For the male partner, the IIEF showed no significant change in the respective domains. Out of the 76 couples, 93% of the males and 96% of their female partners would recommend and do vasectomy again. The postoperative pain score was 3.5 on 0-10 scale, and there were no postoperative complications reported. The best improvement of the sexual function was noticed for the female partners. The FSFI showed a significant improvement in the domains desire (P < 0.05), arousal (P < 0.05), orgasm (P < 0.05), lubrication (P < 0.05), and satisfaction (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This is the first report to our very best knowledge that showed the positive impact of vasectomy on sexual satisfaction of couples. Vasectomy is a safe operation with minimal complication rates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".