Surgical treatment of varicocele in oligospermic patients: A re-evaluation

Gogol, G; Anderman, S.; Ellenbogen, A.; Peer, Rohan; Schlum, H.; Grünstein, S

doi:10.1016/0028-2243(80)90081-7

Cited by 11 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This could also explain the results in study by Nilsson et al [ 20], who found no improvement in sperm quality after varicocelectomy. In that study, the semen counts were high preoperatively, at 47×10 6 /mL, in contrast to another study where there was an increase from 10 to 42×10 6 /mL postoperatively [ 25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

A follow‐up study of semen quality and fertility in men with varicocele testis and in control subjects

Lund

Larsen

1998

British Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To evaluate semen quality and fecundity in a men with and without reduced semen quality. There were no diCerences between the groups in sperm group of men with initially untreated varicocele testis, in comparison with control subjects. motility values (straight-line velocity, curvilinear velocity) evaluated using computer-assisted semen analyPatients, subjects and methods In a prospective, longitudinal study, 77 men (39 with varicocele and 38 sis. Paternity was achieved by 10 of 14 men in the varicocele group, compared with 14 of 16 in the control subjects) were evaluated in 1989 and re-investigated after 8 years. Fifty-seven men (29 with control group. Conclusions There was no evidence that varicovaricocele, 28 controls) were available for evaluation and they all completed a questionnaire. Semen from celectomy might benefit patients, because the sperm concentration did not decline among men with varicoa total of 46 men (24 with varicocele) was compared with findings in 22 men from the control group.cele over time. Computer-assisted semen analysis provided a good assessment of various sperm motility Results There was a decline in sperm count in the control group from 80×106/mL to 55×106/mL over characteristics and we recommend evaluation using such objective methods, to allow comparison among the 8-year period, but nearly no change in the sperm count in the men with varicocele. The withdrawal studies Keywords Varicocele testis, semen, fertility, male rate from each group was the same and included both in a group with initially untreated varicocele and a

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

A follow‐up study of semen quality and fertility in men with varicocele testis and in control subjects

Lund

Larsen

1998

British Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The main characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 2 [ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Varicocele Repair Improve Conventional Semen Parameters? A Meta-Analytic Study of Before-After Data

Cannarella

Shah

Hamoda

et al. 2024

World J Mens Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this meta-analysis is to study the impact of varicocele repair in the largest cohort of infertile males with clinical varicocele by including all available studies, with no language restrictions, comparing intra-person conventional semen parameters before and after the repair of varicoceles. Materials and Methods The meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA-P and MOOSE guidelines. A systematic search was performed in Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases. Eligible studies were selected according to the PICOS model (Population: infertile male patients with clinical varicocele; Intervention: varicocele repair; Comparison: intra-person before-after varicocele repair; Outcome: conventional semen parameters; Study type: randomized controlled trials [RCTs], observational and case-control studies). Results Out of 1,632 screened abstracts, 351 articles (23 RCTs, 292 observational, and 36 case-control studies) were included in the quantitative analysis. The before-and-after analysis showed significant improvements in all semen parameters after varicocele repair (except sperm vitality); semen volume: standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.203, 95% CI: 0.129–0.278; p<0.001; I 2 =83.62%, Egger’s p=0.3329; sperm concentration: SMD 1.590, 95% CI: 1.474–1.706; p<0.001; I 2 =97.86%, Egger’s p<0.0001; total sperm count: SMD 1.824, 95% CI: 1.526–2.121; p<0.001; I 2 =97.88%, Egger’s p=0.0063; total motile sperm count: SMD 1.643, 95% CI: 1.318–1.968; p<0.001; I 2 =98.65%, Egger’s p=0.0003; progressive sperm motility: SMD 1.845, 95% CI: 1.537%–2.153%; p<0.001; I 2 =98.97%, Egger’s p<0.0001; total sperm motility: SMD 1.613, 95% CI 1.467%–1.759%; p<0.001; l2=97.98%, Egger’s p<0.001; sperm morphology: SMD 1.066, 95% CI 0.992%–1.211%; p<0.001; I 2 =97.87%, Egger’s p=0.1864. Conclusions The current meta-analysis is the largest to date using paired analysis on varicocele patients. In the current meta-analysis, almost all conventional semen parameters improved significantly following varicocele repair in infertile patients with clinical varicocele.

show abstract