Literature DB >> 21196073

Does varicocele repair improve male infertility? An evidence-based perspective from a randomized, controlled trial.

Taha A Abdel-Meguid1, Ahmad Al-Sayyad, Abdulmalik Tayib, Hasan M Farsi.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing varicocele treatment are scarce and have conflicting outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether varicocele treatment is superior or inferior to no treatment in male infertility from an evidence-based perspective. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective, nonmasked, parallel-group RCT with a one-to-one concealed-to-random allocation was conducted at the authors' institution from February 2006 to October 2009. Married men 20-39 yr of age who had experience infertility ≥1 yr, had palpable varicoceles, and with at least one impaired semen parameter (sperm concentration <20 million/ml, progressive motility <50%, or normal morphology <30%) were eligible. Exclusions included subclinical or recurrent varicoceles, normal semen parameters, and azoospermia. Sample size analysis suggested 68 participants per arm. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly allocated to observation (the control arm [CA]) or subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy (the treatment arm [TA]). Semen analyses were obtained at baseline (three analyses) and at follow-up months 3, 6, 9, and 12. The mean of each sperm parameter at baseline and follow-ups was determined. MEASUREMENTS: We measured the spontaneous pregnancy rate (the primary outcome), changes from baseline in mean semen parameters, and the occurrence of adverse events (AE-the secondary outcomes) during 12-mo follow-up; p<0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Analysis included 145 participants (CA: n=72; TA: n=73), with a mean age plus or minus standard deviation of 29.3±5.7 in the CA and 28.4±5.7 in the TA (p=0.34). Baseline characteristics in both arms were comparable. Spontaneous pregnancy was achieved in 13.9% (CA) versus 32.9% (TA), with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.04 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-6.95) and a number needed to treat (NNT) of 5.27 patients (95% CI, 1.55-8.99). In CA within-arm analysis, none of semen parameters revealed significant changes from baseline (sperm concentration [p=0.18], progressive motility [p=0.29], and normal morphology [p=0.05]). Conversely, in TA within-arm analysis, the mean of all semen parameters improved significantly in follow-up versus baseline (p<0.0001). In between-arm analysis, all semen parameters improved significantly in the TA versus CA (p<0.0001). No AEs were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: Our RCT provided level 1b evidence of the superiority of varicocelectomy over observation in infertile men with palpable varicoceles and impaired semen quality, with increased odds of spontaneous pregnancy and improvements in semen characteristics within 1-yr of follow-up.
Copyright © 2010 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21196073     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.12.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  66 in total

1.  Ultrasound evaluation of varicoceles: guidelines and recommendations of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology Scrotal and Penile Imaging Working Group (ESUR-SPIWG) for detection, classification, and grading.

Authors:  Simon Freeman; Michele Bertolotto; Jonathan Richenberg; Jane Belfield; Vikram Dogra; Dean Y Huang; Francesco Lotti; Karolina Markiet; Olivera Nikolic; Subramaniyan Ramanathan; Parvati Ramchandani; Laurence Rocher; Mustafa Secil; Paul S Sidhu; Katarzyna Skrobisz; Michal Studniarek; Athina Tsili; Ahmet Tuncay Turgut; Pietro Pavlica; Lorenzo E Derchi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-07-22       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Treating varicocele in 2018: current knowledge and treatment options.

Authors:  M Zavattaro; C Ceruti; G Motta; S Allasia; L Marinelli; C Di Bisceglie; M P Tagliabue; M Sibona; L Rolle; F Lanfranco
Journal:  J Endocrinol Invest       Date:  2018-10-03       Impact factor: 4.256

Review 3.  The Dilemma of Adolescent Varicoceles: Do They Really Have to Be Repaired?

Authors:  Bryan S Sack; Mattias Schäfer; Michael P Kurtz
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 4.  Microsurgical varicocelectomy: a review.

Authors:  Akanksha Mehta; Marc Goldstein
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2012-11-12       Impact factor: 3.285

Review 5.  Insight into oxidative stress in varicocele-associated male infertility: part 2.

Authors:  Alaa Hamada; Sandro C Esteves; Ashok Agarwal
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 14.432

6.  Macroscopic and microsurgical varicocelectomy: what's the intraoperative difference?

Authors:  Xiaopeng Liu; Hao Zhang; Xingxing Ruan; Hengjun Xiao; Wentao Huang; Liaoyuan Li; Xin Gao; Yan Zhang
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-09-22       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Male factor infertility: Varicocele repair in the era of assisted reproductive technology.

Authors:  Mikkel Fode
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2017-10-31       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 8.  [News from andrology. Infertility, erectile dysfunction, and hypogonadism].

Authors:  W Weidner; A Rusz; A Pilatz; A Hauptmann; H-C Schuppe
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 0.639

9.  Comparison of the Effects of Varicocelectomy and Oral L-carnitine on Sperm Parameters in Infertile Men with Varicocele.

Authors:  Heshmatollah Sofimajidpour; Ebrahim Ghaderi; Omid Ganji
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-04-01

10.  Microanatomy of the spermatic cords during microsurgical inguinal varicocelectomy: initial experience in Asian men.

Authors:  Xue-Ke Wang; Hong-Zhen Wang; Ding-Jun Fu; Ming-Kuen Lai
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2012-10-15       Impact factor: 3.285

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.