Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
OtherCorrespondence

Author’s Reply

Ronald E. Christensen
The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice July 2005, 18 (4) 327a-328; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.18.4.327a
Ronald E. Christensen
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

To the Editor: Dr Ramakrishnan has raised some very good points. There is no absolute protocol for the number or timing of postvasectomy semen analyses. He suggests that a single 3-month postvasectomy semen analysis would probably suffice, which seems reasonable. My research, however, indicates that less than half the men returned at 3 months (25%) than returned for the 6-week check (58%). Because a semen analysis is the only way to know that one has achieved azoospermia—and that is the purpose of the vasectomy—then this noninvasive sampling is logical.

Our study followed Denniston and Pfenninger,1 which suggested customary postoperative care, with the exception that we also encouraged a 12-month postoperative semen check, in which only 8% of men participated. I also agree that because 42% of my patients did not return for ANY postvasectomy semen analysis, there are a significant number of risk-takers getting a vasectomy. It has been our practice not to routinely send specimens of excised vas deferens to pathology, because it just incurs more cost and does not determine the success of the vasectomy.

References

  1. ↵
    Denniston GC, Pfenninger JL. Vasectomy. In: Proceedures for primary care physicians (Pfenninger JL, Fowler GC, editors). St. Louis: Mosby; 1994. p. 520–40.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice: 18 (4)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice
Vol. 18, Issue 4
July-August 2005
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Author’s Reply
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Author’s Reply
Ronald E. Christensen
The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice Jul 2005, 18 (4) 327a-328; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.18.4.327a

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Author’s Reply
Ronald E. Christensen
The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice Jul 2005, 18 (4) 327a-328; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.18.4.327a
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Response: Re: Prevalence and Associated Factors of Fluoride Varnish Application
  • Re: Prevalence and Associated Factors of Fluoride Varnish Application
  • Re: Prevalence and Associated Factors of Fluoride Varnish Application
Show more Correspondence

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2026 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire