Effectiveness and complications associated with 2 vasectomy occlusion techniques.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We compared the effectiveness and complications associated with 2 common vasectomy occlusion techniques, namely clipping and excision of a small vas segment and thermal cautery with fascial interposition and an open testicular end. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the computerized records of 3,761 men who underwent initial vasectomy at a single university hospital family planning clinic and at 2 private clinics in the Quebec City, Canada area, including concurrent and historical controls. All procedures were performed by 1 surgeon, who used the scalpel-free technique to expose the vas. RESULTS: The risk of vas occlusion failure in men with at least 1 semen analysis was much greater in the clipping and excision group than in the cautery, interposition and open testicular end group (126 of 1,453 or 8.7% versus 3 of 1,165 or 0.3%, OR 37, 95% CI 12 to 116). Medical consultations for hematoma or infection were more frequent in the cautery group (28 of 1,721 cases or 1.6% versus 10 of 2,040 or 0.5%, OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.6 to 6.9). Consultations for noninfectious pain were similar for the 2 techniques (71 of 1,721 cases or 4.1% versus 72 of 2,040 or 3.5%, OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.6). CONCLUSIONS: Cautery and interposition with an open testicular end are much more effective than clipping and excision. The effectiveness and morbidity associated with the components of the cautery, interposition and open testicular end technique need further evaluation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".