Background: There is wide agreement nowadays that a clinical varicocoele should be ligated to treat male factor infertility. However, the significance of testicular artery preservation in patients with severe oligozoospermia has not been addressed before. Objectives: To assess the outcome of varicocelectomy in infertile men with severe oligozoospermia and clinical varicocoeles and to compare internal spermatic artery preservation vs. artery ligation. Materials and Methods: This prospective randomized study included 302 infertile patients with severe oligozoospermia and clinical (grade II/III) varicocoeles. Patients were randomized into two groups: group A (150 patients) underwent artery-preserving varicocelectomy (APV) and group B (152 patients) underwent artery-ligating varicocelectomy (ALV). The primary outcome was to assess the changes in sperm density and motility at 3 and 6 months postoperatively in both groups. The secondary outcome was to compare the natural pregnancy rate at 1-year of follow-up. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine factors affecting pregnancy rate. Results: In both groups, there was a statistically significant improvement in sperm density and motility at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. In group A, there was a greater improvement in sperm density (p < 0.001) and motility (p < 0.001) compared to group B. At 1-year follow-up, overall 35.1% achieved a natural pregnancy. Group A achieved a significantly higher natural pregnancy rate (40% vs. 30%, p value = 0.03) compared to group B. Smaller testicular volume and ALV were the independent predictors of lower pregnancy rate ((HR = 3.2, 95% CI 1.2-8.3, p = 0.01) and (HR = 3.2, 95% CI 1.4-7.1, p = 0.003), respectively). Conclusion: In men with severe oligozoospermia and a clinical varicocoele, APV results in improved outcomes as compared to ALV with respect to semen parameters and natural pregnancy rates. Therefore, all attempts should be made to preserve internal spermatic arteries (ISA) during varicocelectomy in men with severe oligozoospermia.
Premature ejaculation remains a difficult condition to manage for patients, their partners, and the clinician. Whilst prevalence rates are estimated to be 20–40%, determining a diagnosis of premature ejaculation is difficult, as the definition remains both subjective and ill-defined in the clinical context. As our understanding of the ejaculatory pathway has improved, new opportunities to treat the condition have evolved with mixed results. In this review, we explore some of these controversies surrounding the aetiology, diagnosis, and treatment of this condition and discuss potential novel therapeutic options.
In men undergoing radical treatment for prostate cancer, erectile function is one of the most important health-related quality-of-life outcomes influencing patient choice in treatment. Penile rehabilitation has emerged as a therapeutic measure to prevent erectile dysfunction and expedite return of erectile function after radical prostatectomy. Penile rehabilitation involves a program designed to increase the likelihood of return to baseline-level erectile function, as opposed to treatment, which implies the therapeutic treatment of symptoms, a key component of post–radical prostatectomy management. Several pathological theories form the basis for rehabilitation, and a plethora of treatments are currently in widespread use. However, whilst there is some evidence supporting the concept of penile rehabilitation from animal studies, randomised controlled trials are contradictory in outcomes. Similarly, urological guidelines are conflicted in terms of recommendations. Furthermore, it is clear that in spite of the lack of evidence for the role of penile rehabilitation, many urologists continue to employ some form of rehabilitation in their patients after radical prostatectomy. This is a significant burden to health resources in public-funded health economies, and no effective cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken to support this practice. Thus, further research is warranted to provide both scientific and clinical evidence for this contemporary practice and the development of preventative strategies in treating erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy.
ObjectivesTo compare the safety and efficacy of bipolar transurethral plasma vaporisation (B-TUVP) as an alternative to the ‘gold standard’ monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (M-TURP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in a prospective randomised controlled study.Patients and methodsIn all, 82 patients indicated for prostatectomy were assigned to two groups, group I (40 patients) underwent B-TUVP and group II (42 patients) underwent M-TURP. The safety of both techniques was evaluated by reporting perioperative changes in serum Na+, serum K+, haematocrit (packed cell volume), and any perioperative complications. For the efficacy assessment, patients were evaluated subjectively by comparing the improvement in International Prostate Symptom Score and objectively by measuring the maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) and post-void residual urine volume (PVR) before and after the procedures.ResultsIn group II, there was a significant perioperative drop in serum Na+ (from 137.5 to 129.4 mmol/L) and haematocrit (from 42.9% to 38.2%) (both P < 0.001). Moreover, one patient in group II had TUR syndrome. The remote postoperative complication rate was (15%) in group I and comprised of stress urinary incontinence (5%), bladder outlet obstruction (5%), and residual adenoma (5%). In group II, the remote postoperative complication rate was (4.8%), as two patients developed urethral stricture. There were statistically significant improvements in micturition variables postoperatively in both arms, but the magnitude of improvement was statistically more significant in group II.ConclusionB-TUPV seems to be safer than M-TURP; however, the lack of a tissue specimen and the relatively high retreatment rate are major disadvantages of the B-TUVP technique. Moreover, M-TURP appears to be more effective than B-TUPV and its safety can be improved by careful case selection and adequate haemostasis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.