Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of nine cases of unruptured basilar tip aneurysm referred to the Fujita Health University Banbuntane-Hotokukai Hospital, Japan. The objective of the study was to analyze the surgical outcomes of unruptured basilar tip aneurysm.
Results: Nine patients with unruptured basilar tip aneurysm were referred to our hospital between 2015 and 2017. The median size of the aneurysm and age were 4.00 mm (interquartile range [IQR] = 3.25-6.75 mm) and 58 years (IQR = 54-70 years), respectively. Five patients (55.6%) were presented with multiple intracranial aneurysms. Surgical adjuncts such as intraoperative neuromonitoring, intraoperative indocyanine green (ICG) angiography with dual-image videoangiography (DIVA), and neuroendoscope were used. Two patients developed transient postoperative oculomotor nerve palsy which resolved spontaneously. The median duration of surgery and days of hospitalization were 292 min (IQR = 237.5-350.5 min) and 12 days (IQR = 12-25 days), respectively. There was no mortality recorded in this case series.
Conclusion: Microsurgical clipping of basilar tip aneurysm is safe in unruptured basilar tip aneurysm with a low risk of postoperative mortality or morbidity. All complications reported in this case series were transient with no long-term sequalae. The improved safety profile of microsurgical technique is due to the availability of intraoperative neuromonitoring, neuroendoscope, ICG, and DIVA. The application of multimodality technique in neurovascular surgery has also helped to achieve complication avoidance. The obliteration of the aneurysmal sac helps to restore the laminar blood flow in the bifurcation and distal blood vessels and improves the brain perfusion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We present a detailed step-by-step protocol for performing and interpretating PVSA testing, along with recommendations for proficiency testing, competency assessment for performing PVSA, and clinical and laboratory scenarios. Moreover, we conducted an analysis of 1,114 PVSA performed at the Cleveland Clinic's Andrology Laboratory and an online survey to understand clinician responses to the PVSA results in various countries.
RESULTS: Results from our clinical experience showed that 92.1% of patients passed PVSA, with 7.9% being further tested. A total of 78 experts from 19 countries participated in the survey, and the majority reported to use time from vasectomy rather than the number of ejaculations as criterion to request PVSA. A high percentage of responders reported permitting unprotected intercourse only if PVSA samples show azoospermia while, in the presence of few non-motile sperm, the majority of responders suggested using alternative contraception, followed by another PVSA. In the presence of motile sperm, the majority of participants asked for further PVSA testing. Repeat vasectomy was mainly recommended if motile sperm were observed after multiple PVSA's. A large percentage reported to recommend a second PVSA due to the possibility of legal actions.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlighted varying clinical practices around the globe, with controversy over the significance of non-motile sperm in the PVSA sample. Our data suggest that less stringent AUA guidelines would help improve test compliance. A large longitudinal multi-center study would clarify various doubts related to timing and interpretation of PVSA and would also help us to understand, and perhaps predict, recanalization and the potential for future failure of a vasectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty practicing urologists/andrologists from 23 countries contributed 382 multiple-choice-questions pertaining to varicocele management. These were condensed into an online questionnaire that was forwarded to clinicians involved in male infertility management through direct invitation. The results were analyzed for disagreement and agreement in practice patterns and, compared with the latest guidelines of international professional societies (American Urological Association [AUA], American Society for Reproductive Medicine [ASRM], and European Association of Urology [EAU]), and with evidence emerging from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, an expert opinion on each topic was provided based on the consensus of 16 experts in the field.
RESULTS: The questionnaire was answered by 574 clinicians from 59 countries. The majority of respondents were urologists/uro-andrologists. A wide diversity of opinion was seen in every aspect of varicocele diagnosis, indications for repair, choice of technique, management of sub-clinical varicocele and the role of VR in azoospermia. A significant proportion of the responses were at odds with the recommendations of AUA, ASRM, and EAU. A large number of clinical situations were identified where no guidelines are available.
CONCLUSIONS: This study is the largest global survey performed to date on the clinical management of varicocele for male infertility. It demonstrates: 1) a wide disagreement in the approach to varicocele management, 2) large gaps in the clinical practice guidelines from professional societies, and 3) the need for further studies on several aspects of varicocele management in infertile men.