Retrospective evaluation of post-surgical orchialgia in men undergoing no-scalpel vasectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Vasectomy is a form of permanent contraception in men that is safe and effective. Complications are relatively uncommon, although patients may experience postoperative pain. Current literature quotes a broad range in the incidence of chronic orchialgia following no-scalpel vasectomy, from 0.6-26%, while pain negatively affecting quality of life is about 1-2%. We sought to evaluate our incidence of post-vasectomy pain and surgical management for this pain. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed for all men who underwent a vasectomy at Men's Health Clinic Manitoba during a 22-month period. The presence of pain or complications was collected at a three-month followup appointment. Patients with pain were then followed every 6-8 weeks for continued assessment and management. RESULTS: A total of 350 men underwent elective no-scalpel vasectomy during this period. Most patients had no previous history of orchialgia (98%) or history of previous scrotal surgery (93%). At three months post-vasectomy, 38/350 (11%) of patients had ongoing pain and one patient required surgery (epididymectomy) for management of post-vasectomy pain syndrome three months following vasectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective analysis of 350 men who underwent no-scalpel vasectomy shows a significant proportion of post-vasectomy pain at the three-month followup appointment, although most cases are resolving or minor and only one patient has required surgical management. This highlights the importance of counseling men undergoing vasectomy regarding the risks of post-procedure orchialgia and the small proportion of men who will require additional surgical intervention.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".