| Literature DB >> 29184794 |
Ioannis Vakalopoulos1, Spyridon Kampantais2, Stefania Lymperi3, Nikolaos Grivas4, Anastasios Ioannidis1, Ioannis Mykoniatis1, Vassilios Nikolaou1, Georgios Dimitriadis1.
Abstract
Current guidelines suggest that treatment of varicocele should be considered in patients with clinically palpable disease and abnormal semen parameters. However, the clinicians are often challenged with the decision whether to treat varicocele in patients with testicular pain or low testosterone levels. Moreover, varicocele is highly associated with DNA fragmentation due to the oxidative stress and it has been demonstrated that surgical repair of varicocele ameliorates oxidative stress markers and consequently the sperm DNA integrity. These new markers could have an adjunctive role to standard semen parameters especially when normal semen analysis is found in adult men with conventional methods. This review presents a contemporary overview of the rationale for varicocele treatment, as well as of the relationship between varicocele and other novel parameters such as DNA fragmentation index and reactive oxygen species. We will also discuss data from several recent series demonstrating that surgical treatment and especially microsurgical approach could resolve testicular pain, increase testosterone levels and fertility rate both in patients with non-obstructive azoospermia as well as in normozoospermia men. The correlation with progressive testicular failure will be also examined. We hope that this overview will provide clinicians with an evidence-based approach to managing these unanswered and conflicting topics.Entities:
Keywords: DNA damage; Varicocele; azoospermia; pain; testosterone
Year: 2017 PMID: 29184794 PMCID: PMC5673807 DOI: 10.21037/tau.2017.08.01
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Androl Urol ISSN: 2223-4683
Studies reporting post-varicocelectomy semen analysis of men with NOA and pregnancy rates with the use of postoperative ejaculated sperm (77-81,84,85,88-93)
| First author (year) | Presence of sperm in postoperative ejaculate [n (%)] | Mean postoperative sperm count (×106 mL-1) | Mean postoperative sperm motility (%) | Natural pregnancy (n) | Pregnancy rates by ART (n) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Matthews (1998) | 12/22 (55.0) | 2.2 | NR* | 2/12 | 1/10 |
| Kim (1999) | 14/28 (50.0) | 1.18 | 44 | 0/4 | 2/14 |
| Kadioglu (2001) | 5/24 (20.8) | 0.04 | NR | 0/5 | NR |
| Cakan (2004) | 3/13 (23.1) | 0.73 | 26 | 0/3 | 0/1 |
| Esteves (2005) | 6/17 (35.3) | 0.8 | NR | 1/6 | NR |
| Gat (2005) | 18/32 (52.6) | 3.81 | 1.2 | 4/18 | 5/14 |
| Pasqualotto (2006) | 9/27 (33.3) | 4.06 | 37.6 | 1/9 | NR |
| Poulakis (2006) | 7/14 (50.0) | 3.10 | 2.2 | 2/7 | 1/5 |
| Lee (2007) | 7/19 (36.8) | 0.24 | 30.2 | 1/7 | NR |
| Abdel-Meguid (2012) | 10/31 (32.3) | 2.3 | 15.3 | NR | NR |
| Kiraç (2013) | 7/23 (30.4) | 1.34 | 37.5 | 1/7 | 2/6 |
| Zampieri (2013) | 17/35 (48.6) | 0.6 | 11 | NR | 0/4 |
| D’Andrea (2015) | 11/23 (47.8) | 1.30 | 10 | NR | NR |
NOA, nonobstructive azoospermia; ART, assisted reproductive technology; NR, not reported.