Occlusive effectiveness of open-ended no-scalpel vasectomy with mucosal cautery and fascial interposition: a descriptive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: We aimed to assess the occlusive effectiveness of open-ended vasectomy with mucosal cautery and fascial interposition and to determine the factors associated with occlusion failure. We studied all vasectomies performed between September 1, 2020, and August 31, 2021, by four vasectomy surgeons from Quebec City, Quebec, Canada. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were extracted from the electronic medical records. Occlusive effectiveness was assessed in all men with at least one postvasectomy semen analysis (PVSA). The effectiveness criteria were adapted from those of the American Urological Association (AUA) vasectomy guideline. Among the 4000 eligible vasectomies, 2242 (56.1%) were followed by at least one PVSA, with 99 (4.4%) requiring more than one PVSA. Occlusive effectiveness was achieved in 2233 vasectomies (99.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 99.3%-99.8%), with 2199 (98.1%) and 34 (1.5%) classified as confirmed and probable success, respectively. The final status of the three vasectomies (0.1%) was indeterminate. Occlusive failure was observed in six vasectomies (0.3%; 95% CI: 0.1%-0.6%). The four surgeons had a similar risk of failure. The only significant factor associated with failure was the difficulty in performing the vas occlusion reported by the surgeon (7.4% [2/27] vs 0.2% [4/2212]; relative risk = 41.0; 95% CI: 7.8-214.2). The high occlusive effectiveness observed in our study validates AUA recommendations, supporting the use of this technique. Difficulty in occlusion of the vas deferens, as reported by surgeons, was the only factor associated with vasectomy failure. This finding highlights the need for PVSA in such cases.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".