论文部分内容阅读
目的在置入两种非堵塞性输精管过滤装置（Non-Occlusive Intra-Vas Device, IVD）6年后，以直视钳穿法为对照，评估两种IVD在男性避孕方面的长期有效性和安全性。方法回访6年前的50例IVD-A（不带尾丝）、50例IVD-B（带尾丝）和50例直视钳穿结扎组（结扎组）受试者，统计各组避孕成功情况并比较精子消失率和并发症发生率。结果 IVD-A组、IVD-B组和结扎组成功回访率分别为96%、96%和88%，所有受试者配偶未出现术后怀孕，IVD-A组、IVD-B组、结扎组精子消失率分别为83.3%、100%和95.5%，3组比较差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。IVD-A组、IVD-B组、结扎组并发症发生率分别为14.6%、8.5%和4.5%，3组比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论带尾丝的IVD比不带尾丝的IVD在避孕有效性方面更好，但在减少并发症方面两种IVD并没有差别。“,” Objective To assess the long term efficacy and safety of non-occlusive intra-vas filtration Device (IVD) for male contraception after postoperation. Methods The males who underwent IVD-A, IVD-B and NSV respectvely were followed-up at 6th year after postoperation, and their pregnancy rate, azoospermia rate and complication were comparatively analyzed. Results The successful followingup rates of the IVD-A group, IVD-B group and NSV group were 96%, 96%, 88%;Their spouse all had no pregnancy;Azoospermia rates of three groups were 83.3%, 100%, 95.5%respectively. There were significant differences in the Azoospermia rate among three groups(P0.05). Conclusion The IVD with an attached tail was better than IVD with no tail for male contraception, but no difference inincidence of complication in the two types of IVD.