Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medicine 1/2004

Open Access 01-12-2004 | Research article

Vasectomy surgical techniques: a systematic review

Authors: Michel Labrecque, Caroline Dufresne, Mark A Barone, Karine St-Hilaire

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2004

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

A wide variety of surgical techniques are used to perform vasectomy. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess if any surgical techniques to isolate or occlude the vas are associated with better outcomes in terms of occlusive and contraceptive effectiveness, and complications.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE (1966-June 2003), EMBASE (1980-June 2003), reference lists of retrieved articles, urology textbooks, and our own files looking for studies comparing two or more vasectomy surgical techniques and reporting on effectiveness and complications. From 2,058 titles or abstracts, two independent reviewers identified 224 as potentially relevant. Full reports of 219 articles were retrieved and final selection was made by the same two independent reviewers using the same criteria as for the initial selection. Discrepancies were resolved by involving a third reviewer. Data were extracted and methodological quality of selected studies was assessed by two independent reviewers. Studies were divided in broad categories (isolation, occlusion, and combined isolation and occlusion techniques) and sub-categories of specific surgical techniques performed. Qualitative analyses and syntheses were done.

Results

Of 31 comparative studies (37 articles), only four were randomized clinical trials, most studies were observational and retrospective. Overall methodological quality was low. From nine studies on vas isolation, there is good evidence that the no-scalpel vasectomy approach decreases the risk of surgical complications, namely hematoma/bleeding and infection, compared with incisional techniques. Five comparative studies including one high quality randomized clinical trial provided good evidence that fascial interposition (FI) increases the occlusive effectiveness of ligation and excision. Results of 11 comparative studies suggest that FI with cautery of the vas lumen provides the highest level of occlusive effectiveness, even when leaving the testicular end open. Otherwise, firm evidence to support any occlusion technique in terms of increased effectiveness or decreased risk of complications is lacking.

Conclusions

Current evidence supports no-scalpel vasectomy as the safest surgical approach to isolate the vas when performing vasectomy. Adding FI increases effectiveness beyond ligation and excision alone. Occlusive effectiveness appears to be further improved by combining FI with cautery. Methodologically sound prospective controlled studies should be conducted to evaluate specific occlusion techniques further.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Li SQ, Goldstein M, Zhu J, Huber D: The no-scalpel vasectomy. J Urol. 1991, 145: 341-344.PubMed Li SQ, Goldstein M, Zhu J, Huber D: The no-scalpel vasectomy. J Urol. 1991, 145: 341-344.PubMed
2.
go back to reference Haws JM, Morgan GT, Pollack AE, Koonin LM, Magnani RJ, Gargiullo PM: Clinical aspects of vasectomies performed in the United States in 1995. Urology. 1998, 52: 685-691. 10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00274-X.CrossRefPubMed Haws JM, Morgan GT, Pollack AE, Koonin LM, Magnani RJ, Gargiullo PM: Clinical aspects of vasectomies performed in the United States in 1995. Urology. 1998, 52: 685-691. 10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00274-X.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Black T, Francome C: Comparison of Marie Stopes scalpel and electrocautery no-scalpel vasectomy techniques. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2003, 29: 32-34.CrossRefPubMed Black T, Francome C: Comparison of Marie Stopes scalpel and electrocautery no-scalpel vasectomy techniques. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2003, 29: 32-34.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Kumar V, Kaza RM, Singh I, Singhal S, Kumaran V: An evaluation of the no-scalpel vasectomy technique. BJU Int. 1999, 83: 283-284. 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.00934.x.CrossRefPubMed Kumar V, Kaza RM, Singh I, Singhal S, Kumaran V: An evaluation of the no-scalpel vasectomy technique. BJU Int. 1999, 83: 283-284. 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.00934.x.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Nirapathpongporn A, Huber DH, Krieger JN: No-scalpel vasectomy at the King's birthday vasectomy festival. Lancet. 1990, 335: 894-895. 10.1016/0140-6736(90)90487-P.CrossRefPubMed Nirapathpongporn A, Huber DH, Krieger JN: No-scalpel vasectomy at the King's birthday vasectomy festival. Lancet. 1990, 335: 894-895. 10.1016/0140-6736(90)90487-P.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Xu B, Feng H, Liu XZ: No-scalpel vasectomy training in China. Adv Contracept Deliv Syst. 1993, 9: 1-8.PubMed Xu B, Feng H, Liu XZ: No-scalpel vasectomy training in China. Adv Contracept Deliv Syst. 1993, 9: 1-8.PubMed
7.
go back to reference Alderman PM, Morrison GE: Standard incision or no-scalpel vasectomy?. J Fam Pract. 1999, 48: 719-721.PubMed Alderman PM, Morrison GE: Standard incision or no-scalpel vasectomy?. J Fam Pract. 1999, 48: 719-721.PubMed
8.
go back to reference Pollack A: Prevalence of commonly used technique, follow-up protocols, follow-up rates/issues. Proceeding of an Expert Consultation on Vasectomy Effectiveness. Edited by: Sokal D. 2001, Durham (NC), 10. Pollack A: Prevalence of commonly used technique, follow-up protocols, follow-up rates/issues. Proceeding of an Expert Consultation on Vasectomy Effectiveness. Edited by: Sokal D. 2001, Durham (NC), 10.
9.
go back to reference Deneux-Tharaux C, Kahn E, Nazerali H, Sokal DC: Pregnancy rates after vasectomy: a survey of US urologists. Contraception. 2004, 69: 401-6. 10.1016/j.contraception.2003.12.009.CrossRefPubMed Deneux-Tharaux C, Kahn E, Nazerali H, Sokal DC: Pregnancy rates after vasectomy: a survey of US urologists. Contraception. 2004, 69: 401-6. 10.1016/j.contraception.2003.12.009.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Goldstein M: Surgical management of male infertility and other disorders. Campbell's Urology. Edited by: Campbell MF, Walsh PC, Retik AB and Vaughan ED. 1998, Philadelphia, WB Saunders, 3432-seventh Goldstein M: Surgical management of male infertility and other disorders. Campbell's Urology. Edited by: Campbell MF, Walsh PC, Retik AB and Vaughan ED. 1998, Philadelphia, WB Saunders, 3432-seventh
11.
go back to reference Schmidt SS: Vasectomy: principles and comments. J Fam Pract. 1991, 33: 571-573.PubMed Schmidt SS: Vasectomy: principles and comments. J Fam Pract. 1991, 33: 571-573.PubMed
12.
go back to reference Reynolds RD: Vas deferens occlusion during no-scalpel vasectomy. J Fam Pract. 1994, 39: 577-582.PubMed Reynolds RD: Vas deferens occlusion during no-scalpel vasectomy. J Fam Pract. 1994, 39: 577-582.PubMed
13.
14.
go back to reference Moss WM: A comparison of open-end versus closed-end vasectomies: a report on 6220 cases. Contraception. 1992, 46: 521-525. 10.1016/0010-7824(92)90116-B.CrossRefPubMed Moss WM: A comparison of open-end versus closed-end vasectomies: a report on 6220 cases. Contraception. 1992, 46: 521-525. 10.1016/0010-7824(92)90116-B.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Shapiro EI, Silber SJ: Open-ended vasectomy, sperm granuloma, and postvasectomy orchialgia. Fertil Steril. 1979, 32: 546-550.CrossRefPubMed Shapiro EI, Silber SJ: Open-ended vasectomy, sperm granuloma, and postvasectomy orchialgia. Fertil Steril. 1979, 32: 546-550.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Barone M: Evidence-based review of failure rates and semen characteristics post-vasectomy. Proceeding of an Expert Consultation on Vasectomy Effectiveness. Edited by: Sokal D. 2001, Durham (NC), 10. Barone M: Evidence-based review of failure rates and semen characteristics post-vasectomy. Proceeding of an Expert Consultation on Vasectomy Effectiveness. Edited by: Sokal D. 2001, Durham (NC), 10.
17.
go back to reference Schwingl PJ, Guess HA: Safety and effectiveness of vasectomy. Fertil Steril. 2000, 73: 923-936. 10.1016/S0015-0282(00)00482-9.CrossRefPubMed Schwingl PJ, Guess HA: Safety and effectiveness of vasectomy. Fertil Steril. 2000, 73: 923-936. 10.1016/S0015-0282(00)00482-9.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference MEDLINE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi. MEDLINE: http://​www.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​entrez/​query.​fcgi.​
19.
go back to reference EMBASE: http://www1.elsevier.com/homepage/sah/spd/site/locate_embase.html. EMBASE: http://​www1.​elsevier.​com/​homepage/​sah/​spd/​site/​locate_​embase.​html.​
20.
go back to reference Schmidt SS: Prevention of failure in vasectomy. J Urol. 1973, 109: 296-297.PubMed Schmidt SS: Prevention of failure in vasectomy. J Urol. 1973, 109: 296-297.PubMed
21.
go back to reference Schmidt SS, Free MJ: The bipolar needle for vasectomy. I. Experience with the first 1000 cases. Fertil Steril. 1978, 29: 676-680.CrossRefPubMed Schmidt SS, Free MJ: The bipolar needle for vasectomy. I. Experience with the first 1000 cases. Fertil Steril. 1978, 29: 676-680.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Schmidt SS: Vasectomy by section, luminal fulguration and fascial interposition: results from 6248 cases. Br J Urol. 1995, 76: 373-374.PubMed Schmidt SS: Vasectomy by section, luminal fulguration and fascial interposition: results from 6248 cases. Br J Urol. 1995, 76: 373-374.PubMed
23.
go back to reference Esho JO, Ireland GW, Cass AS: Vasectomy. Comparison of ligation and fulguration methods. Urology. 1974, 3: 337-338.CrossRefPubMed Esho JO, Ireland GW, Cass AS: Vasectomy. Comparison of ligation and fulguration methods. Urology. 1974, 3: 337-338.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Esho JO, Cass AS: Recanalization rate following methods of vasectomy using interposition of fascial sheath of vas deferens. J Urol. 1978, 120: 178-179.PubMed Esho JO, Cass AS: Recanalization rate following methods of vasectomy using interposition of fascial sheath of vas deferens. J Urol. 1978, 120: 178-179.PubMed
25.
go back to reference De Los Rios Osorio J, Arenas A, De Los Rios Osorio S: Vasectomy without interposition of fascia is a disaster. Urologia Colombiana. 1994, 4: 14-19. De Los Rios Osorio J, Arenas A, De Los Rios Osorio S: Vasectomy without interposition of fascia is a disaster. Urologia Colombiana. 1994, 4: 14-19.
26.
go back to reference De Los Rios Osorio J, Castro Alvarez EA: Analysis of 5000 vasectomies in a family planning centre in Medellin-Colombia. Arch Esp Urol. 2003, 56: 53-60.PubMed De Los Rios Osorio J, Castro Alvarez EA: Analysis of 5000 vasectomies in a family planning centre in Medellin-Colombia. Arch Esp Urol. 2003, 56: 53-60.PubMed
27.
28.
go back to reference Moss WM: Sutureless vasectomy, an improved technique: 1300 cases performed without failure. Fertil Steril. 1976, 27: 1040-1045.CrossRefPubMed Moss WM: Sutureless vasectomy, an improved technique: 1300 cases performed without failure. Fertil Steril. 1976, 27: 1040-1045.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Sekhon GS: Percutaneous vasectomy a comparative study using a new instrument and technique. Indian J Med Res. 1970, 58: 1433-1442.PubMed Sekhon GS: Percutaneous vasectomy a comparative study using a new instrument and technique. Indian J Med Res. 1970, 58: 1433-1442.PubMed
30.
go back to reference Gupta AS, Kothari LK, Devpura TP: Vas occlusion by tantalum clips and its comparison with conventional vasectomy in man: reliability, reversibility, and complications. Fertil Steril. 1977, 28: 1086-1089.CrossRefPubMed Gupta AS, Kothari LK, Devpura TP: Vas occlusion by tantalum clips and its comparison with conventional vasectomy in man: reliability, reversibility, and complications. Fertil Steril. 1977, 28: 1086-1089.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Clausen S, Lindenberg S, Nielsen ML, Gerstenberg TC, Praetorius B: A randomized trial of vas occlusion versus vasectomy for male contraception. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1983, 17: 45-46.CrossRefPubMed Clausen S, Lindenberg S, Nielsen ML, Gerstenberg TC, Praetorius B: A randomized trial of vas occlusion versus vasectomy for male contraception. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1983, 17: 45-46.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Li SQ, Xu B, Hou YH, Li CH, Pan QR, Cheng DS: Relationship between vas occlusion techniques and recanalization. Adv Contracept Deliv Syst. 1994, 10: 153-159.PubMed Li SQ, Xu B, Hou YH, Li CH, Pan QR, Cheng DS: Relationship between vas occlusion techniques and recanalization. Adv Contracept Deliv Syst. 1994, 10: 153-159.PubMed
33.
go back to reference Labrecque M, Bedard L, Laperriere L: [Efficacy and complications associated with vasectomies in two clinics in the Quebec region]. Can Fam Physician. 1998, 44: 1860-1866.PubMedPubMedCentral Labrecque M, Bedard L, Laperriere L: [Efficacy and complications associated with vasectomies in two clinics in the Quebec region]. Can Fam Physician. 1998, 44: 1860-1866.PubMedPubMedCentral
34.
go back to reference Labrecque M, Nazerali H, Mondor M, Fortin V, Nasution M: Effectiveness and complications associated with 2 vasectomy occlusion techniques. J Urol. 2002, 168: 2495-2498.CrossRefPubMed Labrecque M, Nazerali H, Mondor M, Fortin V, Nasution M: Effectiveness and complications associated with 2 vasectomy occlusion techniques. J Urol. 2002, 168: 2495-2498.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Bangstrup L, Pedersen ML: [Sterilization of men. Comparison of 3 different surgical methods]. Ugeskr Laeger. 1977, 139: 1476-1478.PubMed Bangstrup L, Pedersen ML: [Sterilization of men. Comparison of 3 different surgical methods]. Ugeskr Laeger. 1977, 139: 1476-1478.PubMed
36.
go back to reference Simcock BW: A comparison of three vasectomy techniques in Australia. Proceedings of the First National Conference on Surgical Contraception. 1978, Kandy, Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka Association for Voluntary Sterilization, 134-140. Simcock BW: A comparison of three vasectomy techniques in Australia. Proceedings of the First National Conference on Surgical Contraception. 1978, Kandy, Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka Association for Voluntary Sterilization, 134-140.
37.
go back to reference Sokal D, McMullen S, Gates D, Dominik R: A comparative study of the no scalpel and standard incision approaches to vasectomy in 5 countries. The Male Sterilization Investigator Team. J Urol. 1999, 162: 1621-1625. 10.1097/00005392-199911000-00013.CrossRefPubMed Sokal D, McMullen S, Gates D, Dominik R: A comparative study of the no scalpel and standard incision approaches to vasectomy in 5 countries. The Male Sterilization Investigator Team. J Urol. 1999, 162: 1621-1625. 10.1097/00005392-199911000-00013.CrossRefPubMed
38.
go back to reference Christensen P, al-Aqidi OA, Jensen FS, Dorflinger T: [Vasectomy. A prospective, randomized trial of vasectomy with bilateral incision versus the Li vasectomy]. Ugeskr Laeger. 2002, 164: 2390-2394.PubMed Christensen P, al-Aqidi OA, Jensen FS, Dorflinger T: [Vasectomy. A prospective, randomized trial of vasectomy with bilateral incision versus the Li vasectomy]. Ugeskr Laeger. 2002, 164: 2390-2394.PubMed
39.
go back to reference Martinez-Manautou J, Hernandez D, Alarcon F, Correu S: Introduction of non-scalpel vasectomy at the Mexican Social Security Institute. Adv Contracept. 1991, 7: 193-201.CrossRefPubMed Martinez-Manautou J, Hernandez D, Alarcon F, Correu S: Introduction of non-scalpel vasectomy at the Mexican Social Security Institute. Adv Contracept. 1991, 7: 193-201.CrossRefPubMed
40.
go back to reference Holt BA, Higgins AF: Minimally invasive vasectomy. Br J Urol. 1996, 77: 585-586. 10.1046/j.1464-410X.1996.95119.x.CrossRefPubMed Holt BA, Higgins AF: Minimally invasive vasectomy. Br J Urol. 1996, 77: 585-586. 10.1046/j.1464-410X.1996.95119.x.CrossRefPubMed
41.
go back to reference Skriver M, Skovsgaard F, Miskowiak J: Conventional or Li vasectomy: a questionnaire study. Br J Urol. 1997, 79: 596-598. 10.1046/j.1464-410X.1997.00390.x.CrossRefPubMed Skriver M, Skovsgaard F, Miskowiak J: Conventional or Li vasectomy: a questionnaire study. Br J Urol. 1997, 79: 596-598. 10.1046/j.1464-410X.1997.00390.x.CrossRefPubMed
42.
go back to reference Labrecque M: Best vasectomy technique?. J Fam Pract. 2000, 49: 175, 177.PubMed Labrecque M: Best vasectomy technique?. J Fam Pract. 2000, 49: 175, 177.PubMed
43.
go back to reference Castillo Jimeno JM, Santiago Gonzalez A, Rodriguez Perez MJ, Quel Alzueta N, Ruiz Rubio JL, Anton Lopez MJ, Martinez Morillas M: Unique incision vasectomy: review of 1,800 cases. Arch Esp Urol. 1992, 45: 63-64.PubMed Castillo Jimeno JM, Santiago Gonzalez A, Rodriguez Perez MJ, Quel Alzueta N, Ruiz Rubio JL, Anton Lopez MJ, Martinez Morillas M: Unique incision vasectomy: review of 1,800 cases. Arch Esp Urol. 1992, 45: 63-64.PubMed
44.
go back to reference Leader AJ, Axelrad SD, Frankowski R, Mumford SD: Complications of 2,711 vasectomies. J Urol. 1974, 111: 365-369.PubMed Leader AJ, Axelrad SD, Frankowski R, Mumford SD: Complications of 2,711 vasectomies. J Urol. 1974, 111: 365-369.PubMed
45.
go back to reference Sokal D, Irsula B, Hays M, Chen-Mok M, Barone M, Group and the Investigators Study: Vasectomy by ligation and excision, with or without fascial interposition: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN77781689]. BMC Med. 2004, 2: 6-10.1186/1741-7015-2-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sokal D, Irsula B, Hays M, Chen-Mok M, Barone M, Group and the Investigators Study: Vasectomy by ligation and excision, with or without fascial interposition: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN77781689]. BMC Med. 2004, 2: 6-10.1186/1741-7015-2-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
46.
go back to reference Rhodes DB, Mumford SD, Free MJ: Vasectomy: efficacy of placing the cut vas in different fascial planes. Fertil Steril. 1980, 33: 433-438.CrossRefPubMed Rhodes DB, Mumford SD, Free MJ: Vasectomy: efficacy of placing the cut vas in different fascial planes. Fertil Steril. 1980, 33: 433-438.CrossRefPubMed
47.
go back to reference Philp T, Guillebaud J, Budd D: Complications of vasectomy: review of 16,000 patients. Br J Urol. 1984, 56: 745-748.CrossRefPubMed Philp T, Guillebaud J, Budd D: Complications of vasectomy: review of 16,000 patients. Br J Urol. 1984, 56: 745-748.CrossRefPubMed
48.
49.
go back to reference Agarwal SL, Gupta RK, Garg P: Percutaneous ligation of vas. Indian J Med Res. 1986, 84: 289-291.PubMed Agarwal SL, Gupta RK, Garg P: Percutaneous ligation of vas. Indian J Med Res. 1986, 84: 289-291.PubMed
51.
go back to reference Davies AH, Sharp RJ, Cranston D, Mitchell RG: The long-term outcome following "special clearance" after vasectomy. Br J Urol. 1990, 66: 211-212.CrossRefPubMed Davies AH, Sharp RJ, Cranston D, Mitchell RG: The long-term outcome following "special clearance" after vasectomy. Br J Urol. 1990, 66: 211-212.CrossRefPubMed
52.
go back to reference Edwards IS: Earlier testing after vasectomy, based on the absence of motile sperm. Fertil Steril. 1993, 59: 431-436.CrossRefPubMed Edwards IS: Earlier testing after vasectomy, based on the absence of motile sperm. Fertil Steril. 1993, 59: 431-436.CrossRefPubMed
53.
go back to reference Haldar N, Cranston D, Turner E, MacKenzie I, Guillebaud J: How reliable is a vasectomy? Long-term follow-up of vasectomised men. Lancet. 2000, 356: 43-44. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02436-3.CrossRefPubMed Haldar N, Cranston D, Turner E, MacKenzie I, Guillebaud J: How reliable is a vasectomy? Long-term follow-up of vasectomised men. Lancet. 2000, 356: 43-44. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02436-3.CrossRefPubMed
54.
go back to reference Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG: The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2001, 1: 2-10.1186/1471-2288-1-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG: The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2001, 1: 2-10.1186/1471-2288-1-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
55.
go back to reference Schmidt SS, Minckler TM: The vas after vasectomy: comparison of cauterization methods. Urology. 1992, 40: 468-470. 10.1016/0090-4295(92)90468-C.CrossRefPubMed Schmidt SS, Minckler TM: The vas after vasectomy: comparison of cauterization methods. Urology. 1992, 40: 468-470. 10.1016/0090-4295(92)90468-C.CrossRefPubMed
56.
go back to reference Black T: The evolution of the Marie Stopes electrocautery no-scalpel vasectomy procedure. The Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care. 2002, 28: 137-138.CrossRefPubMed Black T: The evolution of the Marie Stopes electrocautery no-scalpel vasectomy procedure. The Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care. 2002, 28: 137-138.CrossRefPubMed
57.
go back to reference Nazerali H, Thapa S, Hays M, Pathak LR, Pandey KR, Sokal DC: Vasectomy effectiveness in Nepal: a retrospective study. Contraception. 2003, 67: 397-401. 10.1016/S0010-7824(03)00028-3.CrossRefPubMed Nazerali H, Thapa S, Hays M, Pathak LR, Pandey KR, Sokal DC: Vasectomy effectiveness in Nepal: a retrospective study. Contraception. 2003, 67: 397-401. 10.1016/S0010-7824(03)00028-3.CrossRefPubMed
58.
go back to reference Wang D: Contraceptive failure in China. Contraception. 2002, 66: 173-178. 10.1016/S0010-7824(02)00334-7.CrossRefPubMed Wang D: Contraceptive failure in China. Contraception. 2002, 66: 173-178. 10.1016/S0010-7824(02)00334-7.CrossRefPubMed
59.
go back to reference Silber SJ: Sperm granuloma and reversibility of vasectomy. Lancet. 1977, 2: 588-589. 10.1016/S0140-6736(77)91432-5.CrossRefPubMed Silber SJ: Sperm granuloma and reversibility of vasectomy. Lancet. 1977, 2: 588-589. 10.1016/S0140-6736(77)91432-5.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Vasectomy surgical techniques: a systematic review
Authors
Michel Labrecque
Caroline Dufresne
Mark A Barone
Karine St-Hilaire
Publication date
01-12-2004
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2004
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-2-21

Other articles of this Issue 1/2004

BMC Medicine 1/2004 Go to the issue