Background: Varicocele has been found to impair the function of the epididymis resulting in subfertility whereas the varicocelectomy can resolve the phenomenon. L-carnitine is regarded as a biomarker for the function of the epididymis and has been found in reduced concentrations in infertile patients of various causes, including infertile men with varicocele. It seems that Lcarnitine and varicocele share clinical significance and the area of research looks promising. Objective: To identify the role of L-carnitine in the treatment of varicocele. Materials and methods: A systematic search was performed in Pubmed/Medline with the terms (L-carnitine) and (varicocele) and (L-carnitine) and (varicocelectomy). Inclusion criteria were studies reported outcomes of L-carnitine administration alone or in duet, as primary or adjuvant treatment to varicocele. Exclusion criteria were non-English language and animal studies. Studies using L-carnitine as part of a panel of therapeutic agents were avoided. Results: Only four suitable studies were identified for discussion. In one randomized study, the combination of L-carnitine and cinnoxicam improved semen parameters in patients with non-high-grade varicocele compared to L-carnitine alone and had a favourable effect on pregnancy rates but the effect of grade is unknown. In another study, as an adjuvant treatment to varicocelectomy, L-carnitine showed no clear benefit. Finally, in comparison to surgery, the results are inconclusive; two studies showed some benefit might be expected in low-grade or subclinical varicocele, but surgery appears superior. Conclusions: The evidence regarding the role of L-carnitine as a primary or adjuvant treatment of varicocele is sparse. The pathophysiological significance of L-carnitine implicates a potential role of the molecule in the management of varicocele, but the evidence so far is controversial for any recommendations. L-carnitine might be taken into consideration in selected cases; however, further search is needed in order the optimal role of L-carnitine in infertile patients with varicocele to be clarified.

Objective: To investigate the usage and the efficacy of vitamins as primary or adjuvant treatment in infertile men with varicocele. Methods: A systematic search in PubMed, the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) and Cochrane Library with the terms (varicocele) AND (vitamins) was performed. We searched for studies: a) reporting the administration of vitamins (individually or as part of a complex) in men with varicocele and infertility, b) primarily or adjuvant to invasive treatment, and c) reporting the impact on semen parameters and/or pregnancy rates. Exclusion criteria were animal, adolescent and non-English studies, grey literature and trials reporting abstracts only. Results: Seven studies were identified eligible for qualitative analysis. All studies were randomised except one (case series). Vitamins were administered dominantly as part of antioxidant complex and only two studies used vitamins (C and E, respectively) as sole agent. In two studies, vitamin monotherapy resulted in improvement in semen quality, but the effect on pregnancy rates is unknown. One study reported no efficacy of adjuvant multivitamin treatment after embolisation in terms of both semen quality and pregnancy rates. Finally, four studies reported a positive effect of vitamins on semen parameters after varicocelectomy, but the effect on pregnancy rates is conflicting; one study reported improved pregnancy rates with adjuvant treatment, two studies did not evaluate the pregnancy rates, and in one study the outcome was unclear due to missing data. Conclusions: Vitamins have been used mostly as part of an antioxidant panel for the management of infertile men with varicocele. Most studies have found a positive impact on semen parameters in selected men with varicocele and infertility, as primary or adjuvant treatment. However, the clinical benefit of vitamins administration on pregnancy rate is under-evaluated and should be the target of future research.

Introduction: In comparison to its clinical analogue, the subclinical varicocele represents a questionable entity and specific guidelines for the optimal management are lacking. In our previous study of patients with subclinical varicocele, we showed that bilateral condition is associated with risk of dyspermia. In the present study, we evaluated the risk of deterioration of semen quality in men with bilateral disease and impaired motility according to WHO criteria. Materials and methods: Men with bilateral subclinical varicocele, not desiring fatherhood at the time of presentation, were included in study. During initial evaluation, the number of Total Motile Sperm Count (TMSC) was calculated and the patients’ age, total testicular volume (TTV), maximum venous size and mean resistive index (RI) of the intratesticular arteries were recorded. We classified the participants in five classes according to the TMSC reading: class A-: TMSC < 5 x 106, class A: TMSC between 5-10 x 106, class B: TMSC between 10-15 x 106, class C: TMSC between 15-20 x 106, and class D: TMSC > 20 x 106 per ejaculate. The participants were seen after 6 months for a repeat spermiogram and physical examination. If clinical varicocele was diagnosed or a new abnormality in the spermiogram was noted, the participants were excluded from the study. The remaining patients were allocated to two groups according to the repeat TMSC reading: patients sub-classified into a lower class (group 1), and patients remaining at the same class (group 2). A comparative analysis was performed between two groups. Results: Nineteen men were included. Nine patients were subclassified (group 1). Three patients moved to A- class (< 5 x 106). Ten patients remained in the same class having no deterioration (group 2). Comparing the two groups, no statistically significant difference was recognized for age, TTV, maximum venous size on both sides, and mean RI (p > 0.05). However, the initial reading for TMSC was 14.57 x 106 in group 1, and 22.84 x 106 in group 2, respectively. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Additionally, in a paired analysis there was a significant difference in TMSC after 6 months (p < 0.05), too. Summary Conclusions: Young men with bilateral varicocele and asthenospermia seem to be at risk of deterioration in their semen quality after a follow-up of 6 months. The measurement of TMSC can unmask patients at risk, whereas men with the lowest readings seem to be at highest risk for deterioration. The possibility of a worsening sperm quality should be considered in the appropriate clinical context.

No abstract