Progres en urologie : journal de l'Association francaise d'urologie et de la Societe francaise d'urologie · 2017
[Evaluation of practices and costs of vasectomy. French monocentric experience].
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hourié A, Baron M, Rebibo J D, Giwerc A, Rives N, Sibert L
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Since the law of 4 July 2001, vasectomy has been recognized as a method of male contraception. We report the experience of vasectomy practice in a hospital-university center.
METHODS: A monocentric retrospective cohort study of 45 patients who benefited from a contraceptive vasectomy between July 2001 and May 2016. For each patient were studied: modalities of implementation, compliance with the recommendations of the 2001 law, costs and benefits generated by the intervention, the effectiveness of the gesture on the control spermograms, the satisfaction of the patients by a telephone questionnaire.
RESULTS: The mean age was 41.3 years. The second consultation was carried out in 91 % of the cases but the reflection period was not respected in 24 % of the cases. Written consent was signed in 89 % of cases. Vasectomy was performed on an outpatient basis in 73 % of cases, under local anaesthesia in 6.7 % of cases. The average cost per patient was 660.63 euros for an average gain of 524.50 euros, a loss of 136.13 euros. On the control spermogram, 54.3 % were azoosperms but the 3-month delay was not observed in 23 % of them. No patients expressed regret after surgery.
CONCLUSION: The recommendations of the 2001 law were not systematically followed. This lack of standardization of practices, potential reflection of a lack of interest, is to be highlighted with the extra cost generated. The revaluation of the act should be integrated into the reflection of improvement of male sterilization practices.
LEVEL OF PROOF: 4.
METHODS: A monocentric retrospective cohort study of 45 patients who benefited from a contraceptive vasectomy between July 2001 and May 2016. For each patient were studied: modalities of implementation, compliance with the recommendations of the 2001 law, costs and benefits generated by the intervention, the effectiveness of the gesture on the control spermograms, the satisfaction of the patients by a telephone questionnaire.
RESULTS: The mean age was 41.3 years. The second consultation was carried out in 91 % of the cases but the reflection period was not respected in 24 % of the cases. Written consent was signed in 89 % of cases. Vasectomy was performed on an outpatient basis in 73 % of cases, under local anaesthesia in 6.7 % of cases. The average cost per patient was 660.63 euros for an average gain of 524.50 euros, a loss of 136.13 euros. On the control spermogram, 54.3 % were azoosperms but the 3-month delay was not observed in 23 % of them. No patients expressed regret after surgery.
CONCLUSION: The recommendations of the 2001 law were not systematically followed. This lack of standardization of practices, potential reflection of a lack of interest, is to be highlighted with the extra cost generated. The revaluation of the act should be integrated into the reflection of improvement of male sterilization practices.
LEVEL OF PROOF: 4.