Raheem, Omer A.

AbstractBackgroundMicrodenervation of the spermatic cord (MSCD) is an effective treatment modality for men with intractable scrotal content pain. For patients not interested in preserving fertility, some centers advocate ligation of the vas during denervation, while others prefer stripping of the vas deferens to preserve the vasal artery, hence preserving vasculature to the testis and possibly decreasing post‐operative congestion pain.ObjectiveTo compare outcomes of patients with chronic orchialgia, who underwent MSCD by either stripping or ligating the vas deferens.Materials and methodsA retrospective chart review of 85 patients who underwent MSCD from 2017–2023 was performed. Patients’ demographics including history of prior surgical procedures were recorded. Response to surgery was evaluated as either complete resolution of pain, partial resolution of pain, or no improvement in pain.ResultsEighty‐five patients underwent MSCD with a median (interquartile range, IQR) age of 36 (25.5–46.5) years and median duration of pain of 16 (6–31) months. Thirty‐seven patients underwent stripping of vas, while 48 underwent ligation of vas during MSCD. Median follow up was 12 months. Twenty‐one (43.5%) patients had prior inguinal scrotal surgery in the ligation group compared to 5 (13.5%) in the stripping group, p = 0.003. The etiology of pain was similar between the groups. The response to MSCD between the two groups was similar, 67.6% of patients who underwent stripping had complete resolution of pain versus 66.7% of those who had ligation (p = 0.968), with similar rates of post‐operative complications (p‐value = 0.132).ConclusionsIn men with intractable chronic scrotal content pain with no interest in preserving fertility, ligation, or stripping of the vas deferens yields similar outcomes with regard to pain resolution. Both techniques are safe with no reports of any testicular atrophy.

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this white paper is to educate health care professionals about the evolution of telemedicine (TM) and to propose a hybrid model that leverages the strengths of traditional in-person medicine as well as virtual medicine while maximizing the safety and quality of men’s sexual health care. Literature Search Strategy A literature search focused on the use of TM in urology and men’s health was performed through PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science (January 1, 2012–April 26, 2022). Keywords included all known permutations of the terminology used to refer to virtual health, care as well as the terminology used to refer to urologic diseases, issues specific to men’s health, and men’s sexual health concerns. Publications that emerged after the literature search that met this criterion also were incorporated. Opinion pieces, letters to the editor, meeting abstracts, and conference proceedings were excluded. Additional resources were retrieved, such as governmental technical reports, legislative updates and reviews, and blogs. This search strategy yielded 1684 records across databases after removal of duplicates. Abstracts from the retrieved records were reviewed for relevance. Relevant publications were defined as those that reported data on any aspect of TM use specific to urology, men’s health, and/or men’s sexual health. If relevance was unclear from the abstract, then the full text of the article was retrieved for a more detailed review. In addition, the published evidence-based practice guidelines relevant to care for erectile dysfunction, Peyronie’s disease, ejaculatory dysfunction, and hypogonadism were retrieved. The most common reasons for article exclusions were a focus on TM use in disciplines other than urology and the absence of data (ie, opinion pieces). After exclusions, a total of 91 publications remained and constituted the evidence base for this paper.