Fox, E

Abstract Introduction Sperm cryopreservation is becoming increasingly accessible and cost-effective. One of the most common indications for cryopreservation remains prior to gonadotoxic therapies and surgeries. However, it may be used by patients undergoing vasectomy as an alternative to potential future more invasive procedures including reversal or sperm retrieval. Objective To characterize demographic and individual factors associated with the utilization of cryopreservation prior to vasectomy. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of all patients from January 2023 to May 2025 at a single academic medical center who underwent a vasectomy. All 186 patients who completed the pre-vasectomy questionnaire were included in our analysis. At the time of vasectomy consultation, patients were informed of the procedure’s permanent nature and, per guidelines, were educated on future fertility options, including vasectomy reversal and sperm retrieval for use with in vitro fertilization. All patients were also separately offered sperm cryopreservation. Demographic and questionnaire data was collected and analyzed. Pre-vasectomy questionnaire information included age, relationship information, familial information, and reason for vasectomy, among other factors. Numerical variables were described as medians with interquartile range and categorical variables were described in counts. Due to violation of the normality assumption, Fisher’s Exact test was used for categorical variables and the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test was used for numerical variables. Results 186 patients completed the pre-vasectomy questionnaire and were used in our analysis. Of these individuals, 5.4% (n=10) utilized cryopreservation at the time of vasectomy. Individuals utilizing cryopreservation had a median age 5 years younger than those who did not utilize the same service (p = 0.046). Moreover, 40.0% (n=4) of individuals in the cryopreservation group had children compared to 83.5% (n=147) in the no cryopreservation group (p=0.004). Current relationship length was significantly longer for individuals who did not utilize cryopreservation, with a median reported relationship length of 11 years as compared to a median length of 5 years for individuals utilizing cryopreservation (p=0.025). The shorter relationship length is likely related to an additional finding that the percentage of individuals who utilized cryopreservation were married approximately 30% less often than individuals who did not use the same service (p=0.039). Conclusions While only a small proportion of patients undergoing vasectomy choose to pursue cryopreservation despite counselling at their visit, significant differences in demographic and individual characteristics were observed for those who did. These individuals tended to be younger, married at lower rates, without children, and in shorter relationships. With improved access to reproductive services, further work is needed to understand decision choices for men offered sperm cryopreservation prior to permanent sterilization. Disclosure No