(539) Partnership Status and Contraceptive Method Distributions in Vasectomy Patients with and Without Children: A Single-Center Analysis

Introduction Men without children represent a distinct subset of vasectomy candidates, yet their demographic characteristics and contraceptive behaviors compared to patients with children remain poorly characterized. Objective This study aimed to compare demographic and behavioral characteristics between vasectomy candidates with no children and those with ≥1 child, focusing on age, partnership status, and contraceptive method distributions. Methods This retrospective study analyzed 1,732 sexually active men who underwent vasectomy between 2016 and 2024 at a single tertiary center in Barcelona, Spain. Baseline data-age, number of children, and contraceptive methods-were collected. Patients were grouped by child status: group 1 (no children), group 2 (≥ children). Descriptive statistics summarized the cohort; two-proportion z-tests and chi-square were used to compare partnership prevalence and contraceptive method distributions between groups. Results Group 1 included 117 men (6.7%) with a median age of 41 years (IQR 37–45). Among them, 38 (32.4%) were not in a relationship, while 79 (67.6%) were in a relationship. Contraceptive methods were distributed as follows: 52 men (44.4%) didn’t use contraceptive methods, 65 (55.6%) used contraceptive methods. Of them, 45 (69.2%) condoms, 13 (20%) oral anticontraceptives, 6 (9.2%) intrauterine disposables, and 1 (1.6%) injectable anticontraceptives. Group 2 included 1615 men (93.3%) with a median age of 42 years (IQR 36-46). Of them, 194 (12%) were not in a relationship, while 1421 (88%) were in a relationship. Of Group 2, 416 men (25.8%) did not use contraceptive methods while, 1199 (74.2%) used contraceptive methods. Of them, 823 (68.6%) used condoms, 209 (17.4%) oral anticontraceptives, 144 (12%) intrauterine disposables, and 18 (2%) injectable anticontraceptives. No differences in terms of age were found between groups (p=0.58). Partnership prevalence was significantly lower in Group 1 than in Group 2 (64.96%, 76/113 vs 87.99%, 1421/1610; p < 0.001); contraceptive method distributions also differed between groups (chi-square p < 0.001), and sensitivity analysis showed greater use of no contraceptive method in Group 1 compared with Group 2 (p < 0.001). Among patients without a partner and using or not contraceptive methods, the distribution of having children versus contraceptive method shows 18 (9.3%) patients without children using no contraceptive method and 8 (4.1%) using condoms. While among those with children, 49 (25.3%) did not use any method and 119 (61.3%) used condoms. The chi-square test shows a statistically significant difference in distribution (p = 0.00016), indicating contraceptive method choice is significantly associated with having children in this subgroup. Conclusions Vasectomy patients with 0 children have lower prevalence of being in a relationship compared to men with ≥ child. Group 1 demonstrated a distinct contraceptive method pattern compared with Group 2. These differences support tailored pre procedural counseling based on partnership status and contraceptive behaviors. Disclosure No