Journals / Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology / 2008 / Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 2

Is it worthwhile to operate on subclinical right varicocele in patients with clinical varicolece in the left testicle?

Sol klinik varikoseli olan hastalarda eşlik eden sağ subklinik varikosel tedavi edilmeli mi?

Pages
180–185
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

A meaningful difference could not be detected between the two groups in terms of their pregnancy rates.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: We looked into the effects on the sperm parameters and pregnancy rates of the condition of right subclinical varicocele on those infertile patients with left clinical varicocele.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: Between 2002 and 2005, primary infertile sixty patients who had the condition of clinical varicocele on their left and the condition of subclinical varicocele on their right were randomly grouped into two.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:A meaningful difference could not be detected between the two groups in terms of their pregnancy rates.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2002 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Ürolojik cerrahi prosedürler · erkek · Gebelik oranı

Abstract

Introduction: We looked into the effects on the sperm parameters and pregnancy rates of the condition of right subclinical varicocele on those infertile patients with left clinical varicocele. Materials and Methods: Between 2002 and 2005, primary infertile sixty patients who had the condition of clinical varicocele on their left and the condition of subclinical varicocele on their right were randomly grouped into two. There was not any statistical difference in terms of preoperative semen parameters between the first group (with unilateral left varicocelectomy) and the second group (with bilateral varicocelectomy). Six months after the varicocelectomy, the semen parameters and pregnancy rates of both groups were compared. Results: In both groups a meaningful increase in semen parameters was noted after the operation. In the first group the average sperm concentration increased from 18±1.2 million/cc to 21±1.2 million/cc similarly, in the second group the average sperm concentration increased from 19±0.8 million/cc to 25±1.2 million/cc (p=0,002). The greatest increase was noted in group 2 in semen morphology, 80% of the second group displayed improvement in their semen morphology (p<0.05). However, a meaningful difference could not be detected between the two groups in terms of their pregnancy rates (p=0.06). Conclusion: We recommend subclinical varicocelectomy in patients with clinical varicolece in the left testicle whom semen morphology were ruined. A meaningful difference could not be detected between the two groups in terms of their pregnancy rates.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, primer infertil olup sol klinik varikoseli ve ona eşlik eden sağ subklinik varikoseli olan hastalarda varikoselektominin sperm ölçütleri ve gebelik oranlarına olan etkisinin araştırılmasını amaçladık. 2002-2005 yılları arasında sol tarafında klinik varikoseli, sağ tarafında ise subklinik varikoseli olan 60 primer infertil hasta iki gruba ayrıldı. 1. grup (tek taraflı sol varikoselektomi uygulanan grup) ve 2. grup (iki taraflı varikoselektomi uygulanan grup) arasında ameliyat öncesi semen ölçütleri arasında istatistiksel bir fark yoktu. Her iki grubun varikoselektomi sonrası 6. ayda semen ölçütleri ve gebelik oranları karşılaştırıldı. Her iki grupta da ameliyat sonrası semen ölçütlerinde anlamlı artış kaydedildi. 1. grupta ortalama sperm konsantrasyonu 18±1,2 milyon/cc’den, 21±1,2 milyon/cc’ye yükseldi. 2. grupta ise ortalama sperm konsantrasyonu 19±0,8 milyon/cc’den, 25±1,2 milyon/cc’ye yükseldi (p=0,002). En büyük artış grup 2’de semen morfolojisinde görüldü. Hastaların %80’inde semen morfolojisinde düzelme kaydedildi (p<0,05). Fakat iki grup arasında gebelik oranları açısından anlamlı bir fark saptanmadı (p=0,06). Sol klinik varikoseli olup, sağ tarafında ise subklinik varikoseli olan hastalarda sperm morfolojisi bozuk ise iki taraflı varikoselektomiyi önermekteyiz. Fakat istatistiksel olarak gebelik oranında her iki grup arasında anlamlı bir fark saptanmamıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ATALAY, A., TÜRK, L., ÖZYALVAÇLI, E., TOKTAŞ, G., ÜNLÜER, E., DEMİRAY, M. (2008). Is it worthwhile to operate on subclinical right varicocele in patients with clinical varicolece in the left testicle?. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 2, 180–185. https://ajindex.com/articles/328708

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. World Health Organization: The influence of varicoce- le on parameters of fertility in a large group of men pre- senting to fertility clinics. Fertil. Steril. 57: 1289-1293, 1992
  2. World Health Organization: WHO manual for standar- dized investigation and diagnosis of the infertile couple. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press: 2000
  3. Kendirci M, Miroğlu C: Varikosel Patofizyolojisi. Er- kek Reprodüktif Sistem Hastalıkları ve Tedavisi Türk Androloji Derneği yayını. Istanbul; 427-446, 2004
  4. Mohammadali Beigi F, Mehrabi S, Javaherforoshza- deh A: Varicocele in brothers of patients with varicocele. Urol J. 4: 33-5, 2007
  5. Alessandro C, Marco M, Tommasso P, Maria VS, Adolfo C, Giulio O, Domenico R, Lorenzo B: Sonog- raphic Quantitative Evaluation of Skrotal Veins in Healt- hy Subjects: Normative Values and Implications for the Diagnosis of Varicocele: Department of Radiology, "A- gostino Gemelli" Hospital, Catholic University, Rome, Italy 6- Greenberg SH: Varicocele and male fertility. Fertil Ste- ril. 28: 699-706, 1977
  6. Comhaire F, Monteyne R, Kunne M: The value of sc- rotal thermography as compared with selective retrograde venography of the internal spermatic vein for the diagno- sis of subclinical varicocele. Fertil Steril. 27: 694-698, 1976
  7. Dubin L, Amelar RD: Varicocele size and results of va- ricocelectomy in selected subfertile man with varicocele. Fertil Steril. 21: 606-611, 1970
  8. Pasqualotto FF, Lucon AM, de Goes PM, Sobreiro BP, Hallak J, Pasqualotto EB, Arap S: Is it worthwhile to operate on subclinical right varicocele in patients with grade II-III varicocele in the left testicle? J Assist. Rep- rod. Genet. 22: 227-31, 2005
  9. Jarow JP, Sharlip ID, Belker AM, Lipshultz LI, Sig- man M, Thomas AJ, et al: Best practice policies for ma- le infertility. J.Urol. 167: 2138-2144, 2002
  10. Weidner W, Colpi GM, Hargrave TB, Papp GK, Po- merol JM: EAU guidelines on male infertility. Eur Urol 42: 313-322, 2002
  11. Dublin L, Amelar RD: Varicocele size and results of va- ricocelectomy in selected subfertile men with varicocele. Fertil Steril; 21: 606-609, 1970
  12. Yarborough MA, Burns JR, Keller FS: Incidence and clinical significance subclinical scrotal varicoceles. J. Urol. 141: 1372-1374, 1989
  13. Mc Clure DR, Khoo D, Jarvi K, Hricak H: Subclinical varicoceles: The effectiveness of varicocelectomy. J.Urol 145: 789-791, 1991
  14. Dhabuwalla CB, Hamid S, Mogissi KS: Clinical versus subclinical varicocele: Improvement in fertilit