Scalpel versus no‐scalpel incision for vasectomy

Lynley A Cook; Asha Pun; H van Vliet; Maria M.F. Gallo; Laureen M Lopez; Huib HAAM Van Vliet

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004112.pub2

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados
Guías
Temas

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Topics

Temas

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 No‐scalpel versus standard incision, Outcome 1 Perioperative bleeding.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 No‐scalpel versus standard incision, Outcome 2 Hematoma during follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 No‐scalpel versus standard incision, Outcome 3 Operating time <=6 minutes.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 No‐scalpel versus standard incision, Outcome 4 Operating time >=11 min.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 No‐scalpel versus standard incision, Outcome 5 Perioperative difficulty in identifying ductus.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 No‐scalpel versus standard incision, Outcome 6 Perioperative difficulty in isolating the vas.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 No‐scalpel versus standard incision, Outcome 7 Perioperative equipment difficulties (unspecified).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 No‐scalpel versus standard incision, Outcome 8 Perioperative need for assistance from second operator.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 No‐scalpel versus standard incision, Outcome 9 Perioperative pain.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 No‐scalpel versus standard incision, Outcome 10 Pain during follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 No‐scalpel versus standard incision, Outcome 11 Pain or tenderness during long‐term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 No‐scalpel versus standard incision, Outcome 12 Scrotal pain during follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 No‐scalpel versus standard incision, Outcome 13 Pain at ejaculation during follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 No‐scalpel versus standard incision, Outcome 14 Infection during follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 No‐scalpel versus standard incision, Outcome 15 Wound problems during follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1 No‐scalpel versus standard incision, Outcome 16 Sterility.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1 No‐scalpel versus standard incision, Outcome 17 Vasectomy failure.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1. No‐scalpel versus standard incision

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Perioperative bleeding Show forest plot	2	1534	Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.59 [0.33, 1.04]

2 Hematoma during follow up Show forest plot	2	1182	Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.23 [0.15, 0.36]

3 Operating time <=6 minutes Show forest plot	1	1428	Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.37 [1.92, 2.91]

4 Operating time >=11 min Show forest plot	1	1428	Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.56 [0.43, 0.73]

5 Perioperative difficulty in identifying ductus Show forest plot	1	99	Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.54 [0.05, 5.30]

6 Perioperative difficulty in isolating the vas Show forest plot	1	1421	Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.80 [1.18, 2.76]

7 Perioperative equipment difficulties (unspecified) Show forest plot	1	1456	Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.28 [0.10, 0.77]

8 Perioperative need for assistance from second operator Show forest plot	1	99	Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.77 [0.67, 4.70]

9 Perioperative pain Show forest plot	1	1428	Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.75 [0.61, 0.93]

10 Pain during follow up Show forest plot	1	86	Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.03 [0.43, 2.52]

11 Pain or tenderness during long‐term follow up Show forest plot	1	1272	Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.78 [0.46, 1.32]

12 Scrotal pain during follow up Show forest plot	2	1179	Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.66 [0.52, 0.83]

13 Pain at ejaculation during follow up Show forest plot	1	86	Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	7.94 [0.49, 129.15]

14 Infection during follow up Show forest plot	2	1182	Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.34 [0.13, 0.90]

15 Wound problems during follow up Show forest plot	1	86	Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.51 [0.18, 1.47]

16 Sterility Show forest plot	1	1239	Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.94 [0.50, 1.76]

17 Vasectomy failure Show forest plot	1	1239	Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.87 [0.37, 2.07]

Comparison 1. No‐scalpel versus standard incision

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

The Cochrane Library

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet