These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Ultrastructure of epididymal interstitial reactions following vasectomy and vasovasostomy.
    Author: Flickinger CJ, Herr JC, Sisak JR, Howards SS.
    Journal: Anat Rec; 1993 Jan; 235(1):61-73. PubMed ID: 8417629.
    Abstract:
    The response of the male reproductive tract to vasectomy includes inflammation of the interstitial tissue of the epididymis. The pathogenesis of epididymal interstitial reactions and characteristics of the responding cells were studied by electron microscopy in Lewis rats at intervals following bilateral vasectomy, vasectomy followed 1 month later by vasovasostomy, or sham operations. In areas of interstitial reaction, numerous macrophages, monocytes, lymphocytes, neutrophils, and plasma cells occupied the connective tissue. Macrophages, containing many lysosomes and vesicles, aggregated and assumed the appearance of epithelioid cells. Processes of adjacent macrophages interdigitated with one another and closely approached the surfaces of lymphocytes. Many plasma cells with distended rough endoplasmic reticulum appeared in the interstitium. The majority of animals in the vasectomy and vasovasostomy groups exhibited epididymal interstitial changes by 2-3 months; the cauda epididymidis was the region most often affected. The ultrastructural features were indicative of chronic granulomatous inflammation and were consistent with an immune response that includes antigen presentation by macrophages to lymphocytes, lymphocyte differentiation, and local antibody production by plasma cells. The nearly complete absence of sperm or recognizable parts thereof in the interstitial tissue in the areas of the reactions suggests that these lesions formed in response to soluble antigens leaking from the duct. Vasovasostomy was not effective in reversing or retarding epididymal inflammation at the intervals studied.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]