par Degraeve, Amandine;Tosco, Lorenzo;Tombal, Bertrand;Roumeguere, Thierry
;Beirnaert, Jeanne
;Hamal, Robin;Bugli, Céline;Cosentino, Marco;Gin (Don), Lee Wai;Skrodzka, Marta;Albersen, Maarten;van Renterghem, Koenraad;Sempels, Maxime;Penning, David;Fode, Mikkel;Faix, Antoine;Waterloos, Marjan;Gomez, Borja Garcia;Carnicelli, Damien;Graziana, Jean-Pierre;Morgado, Afonso;D’Hauwers, Kathleen;Serefoglu, Ege;Manfredi, Celeste;Weyne, Emmanuel;Beck, Jack;Osmonov, Daniar;Roller, Chris;Ferreti, Ludovic;Russo, Giogio;Yafi, Faysal A;Cuzin, Beatrice;Madec, François-Xavier;Vanoverschelde, Geoffroy;Hervé, François;Chung, Eric;Nordström, Ulla;Cocci, Andrea;Zahr, Rawad Abou;Triffaux, François;Suks, Minhas;Alnajjar, Hussain;Van Damme, Julien;Ward, Sam
Référence Sexual Medicine, 12, 6
Publication Publié, 2024-12


Référence Sexual Medicine, 12, 6
Publication Publié, 2024-12
Article révisé par les pairs
Résumé : | Abstract Introduction Vasectomy is a widely used, safe, effective method of permanent contraception and contributes to healthy sexuality. Aims We have conducted a 3-step observational clinical study to develop a vasectomy regret risk score and guide patients and clinicians when discussing a vasectomy. Methods A 3-step approach has been followed. First, experts involved in male health have proposed risk factors for regret (remorse) after vasectomy, defined by a vasectomy reversal surgery or medically assisted reproduction. The selected factors were evaluated in 1200 patients vasectomized in the last 15 years. Finally, the expert panel has constructed a score for predicting regret after vasectomy. Results Fifty-two international experts identified 17 risk factors for vasectomy regret. Five of the risk factors were significant: an age <35 years old, a high Barrat Impulsivity Score, a low level of education, and a patient who didn’t understand that the vasectomy might not be reversible or for whom the contraception responsibility is ideally feminine, or no responsible partner. On multivariate analysis, 3 risk factors and 2 “sine qua non” conditions were used to build the decision algorithm. A risk score ≥ 4 required information on sperm cryopreservation before vasectomy, and those with a risk score ≥ 7 required extra time for reflection. The scoring system was proposed to 52 international experts and accepted with 86.7% strongly agreeing. The model’s sensitivity and specificity were 0.98 and 0.53, respectively. Conclusion A decisional algorithm was established to identify patients requiring information on sperm cryopreservation before vasectomy or additional time for reflection to reduce the risk of vasectomy regret. The algorithm contains 3 risk factors and 2 “sine qua non” conditions. |