Zhiping Wang, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University – Department of Urology, 80 Cui Ying Meng Street, Lanzhou, GanSu 730000, China. e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author

Hui Ding,

Hui Ding

Department of Urology, Key Laboratory of Diseases of Urological System

Search for more papers by this author

Junqiang Tian,

Junqiang Tian

Department of Urology, Key Laboratory of Diseases of Urological System

Search for more papers by this author

Wan Du,

Wan Du

Otolaryngological Department, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu

Search for more papers by this author

Liyuan Zhang,

Liyuan Zhang

Department of Urology, Key Laboratory of Diseases of Urological System

Search for more papers by this author

Hanzhang Wang,

Hanzhang Wang

Medical College of Shandong University, Jinan City, China

Search for more papers by this author

Zhiping Wang,

Corresponding Author

Zhiping Wang

Department of Urology, Key Laboratory of Diseases of Urological System

First published: 29 May 2012

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11093.x

Citations: 105

Share a link

Email
Facebook
x
LinkedIn
Reddit
Wechat

Abstract

Study Type – Therapy (systematic review)

Level of Evidence 1a

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add?

There are several surgical techniques for the treatment of varicocele in infertile men, including open non-microsurgical, laparoscopic and microsurgical varicocelectomy. It is currently unclear, however, which is the most beneficial method for patients.

The present meta-analysis found that microsurgical varicocelectomy is the most effective and least morbid method among the three varicocelectomy techniques for treating varicocele in infertile men.

OBJECTIVE

•
To compare various techniques of open non-microsurgical, laparoscopic or microsurgical varicocelectomy procedures to describe the best method for treating varicocele in infertile men.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

•
We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) – Science Citation Index and the Chinese Biomedicine Literature Database up to June 2011. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the present study.
•
The outcome measures assessed were pregnancy rate (primary), the incidence of recurrent varicocele, time to return to work, the incidence of postoperative hydrocele and operation duration (secondary).
•
Two authors independently assessed the study quality and extracted data. All data were analysed using Review Manager (version 5.0).

RESULTS

•
The present study included four randomized controlled trials comprising 1,015 patients in total.
•
At the follow-up endpoints, patients who had undergone microsurgery showed a significant advantage over those who had undergone open varicocelectomy in terms of pregnancy rate (odds ratio [OR]= 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19–2.23].
•
There was no significant difference between laparoscopic and open varicocelectomy (OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.65–1.88) or between microsurgery and laparoscopic varicocelectomy (OR = 1.37, 95% CI: 0.84–2.24).
•
The incidences of recurrent varicocele and postoperative hydrocele were significantly lower after microsurgery than after laparoscopic or open varicocelectomy.
•
The time to return to work after microsurgery and laparoscopic varicocelectomy was significantly shorter than that after open varicocelectomy.
•
The operation duration of microsurgical varicocelectomy was longer than that of laparoscopic or open varicocelectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

•
Current evidence indicates that microsurgical varicocelectomy is the most effective and least morbid method among the three varicocelectomy techniques for treating varicocele in infertile men.
•
More high-quality, multicentre, long-term RCTs are required to verify the findings.

REFERENCES

1 Nagler HM, Martinis FG. Varicocele. In LI Lipshultz, SS Howards eds, Infertility in the Male, 3rd edn. St Louis: Mosby–Year Book, 1997: 336–59
Google Scholar
2 Sigman M, JP J. Male Infertility: Diagnostic Categories. PC IW, ed. Campbell's Urology Philadelphia: Saunders, 2007
Google Scholar
3 Evers JH, Collins J, Clarke J. Surgery or embolisation for varicoceles in subfertile men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; 1: CD000479
10.1002/14651858.CD000479.pub4
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
4 Marmar JL, Agarwal A, Prabakaran S et al. Reassessing the value of varicocelectomy as a treatment for male subfertility with a new meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2007; 88: 639–48
10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.12.008
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
5 Abdel-Meguid TA, Al-Sayyad A, Tayib A, Farsi HM. Does varicocele repair improve male infertility? An evidence-based perspective from a randomized, controlled trial. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 455–61
10.1016/j.eururo.2010.12.008
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
6 Cayan S, Acar D, Ulger S, Akbay E. Adolescent varicocele repair: long-term results and comparison of surgical techniques according to optical magnification use in 100 cases at a single university hospital. J Urol 2005; 174: 2003–6; discussion 6-7
10.1097/01.ju.0000176488.44895.7b
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
7 Schiff J, Kelly C, Goldstein M, Schlegel P, Poppas D. Managing varicoceles in children: results with microsurgical varicocelectomy. BJU Int 2005; 95: 399–402
10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05308.x
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
8 Cayan S, Kadioglu TC, Tefekli A, Kadioglu A, Tellaloglu S. Comparison of results and complications of high ligation surgery and microsurgical high inguinal varicocelectomy in the treatment of varicocele. Urology 2000; 55: 750–4
10.1016/S0090-4295(99)00603-2
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
9 Pintus C, Rodriguez Matas MJ, Manzoni C, Nanni L, Perrelli L. Varicocele in pediatric patients: comparative assessment of different therapeutic approaches. Urology 2001; 57: 154–7
10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00859-1
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
10 Al-Kandari AM, Shabaan H, Ibrahim HM, Elshebiny YH, Shokeir AA. Comparison of outcomes of different varicocelectomy techniques: open inguinal, laparoscopic, and subinguinal microscopic varicocelectomy: a randomized clinical trial. Urology 2007; 69: 417–20
10.1016/j.urology.2007.01.057
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
11 Watanabe M, Nagai A, Kusumi N, Tsuboi H, Nasu Y, Kumon H. Minimal invasiveness and effectivity of subinguinal microscopic varicocelectomy: a comparative study with retroperitoneal high and laparoscopic approaches. Int J Urol 2005; 12: 892–8
10.1111/j.1442-2042.2005.01142.x
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
12 Cayan S, Shavakhabov S, Kadioglu A. Treatment of palpable varicocele in infertile men: a meta-analysis to define the best technique. J Androl 2009; 30: 33–40
10.2164/jandrol.108.005967
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
13 Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996; 17: 1–12
10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
14 Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273: 408–12
10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
15 Abdel-Maguid AF, Othman I. Microsurgical and nonmagnified subinguinal varicocelectomy for infertile men: a comparative study. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 2600–3
10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.03.063
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
16 Al-Said S, Al-Naimi A, Al-Ansari A et al. Varicocelectomy for male infertility: a comparative study of open, laparoscopic and microsurgical approaches. J Urol 2008; 180: 266–70
10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.050
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
17 Pryor JL, Howards SS. Varicocele. Urol Clin North Am 1987; 14: 499–513
10.1016/S0094-0143(21)01755-9
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
18 Baazeem A, Boman JM, Libman J, Jarvi K, Zini A. Microsurgical varicocelectomy for infertile men with oligospermia: differential effect of bilateral and unilateral varicocele on pregnancy outcomes. BJU Int 2009; 104: 524–8
10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08431.x
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
19 Baazeem A, Belzile E, Ciampi A et al. Varicocele and male factor infertility treatment: a new meta-analysis and review of the role of varicocele repair. Eur Urol 2011; 796–808
10.1016/j.eururo.2011.06.018
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
20 Homonnai ZT, Fainman N, Engelhard Y et al. Varicocelectomy and male fertility: comparison of semen quality and recurrence of varicocele following varicocelectomy by two techniques. Int J Androl 1980; 3: 447–58
10.1111/j.1365-2605.1980.tb00133.x
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
21 Rothman CM, Newmark H III, Karson RA. The recurrent varicocele – a poorly recognized problem. Fertil Steril 1981; 35: 552–6
10.1016/S0015-0282(16)45500-7
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
22 Niedzielski J, Paduch DA. Recurrence of varicocele after high retroperitoneal repair: implications of intraoperative venography. J Urol 2001; 165: 937–40
10.1016/S0022-5347(05)66579-2
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
23 Sayfan J, Adam YG, Soffer Y. A new entity in varicocele subfertility: the cremasteric reflux. Fertil Steril 1980; 33: 88–90
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
24 Murray RR Jr, Mitchell SE, Kadir S et al. Comparison of recurrent varicocele anatomy following surgery and percutaneous balloon occlusion. J Urol 1986; 135: 286–9
10.1016/S0022-5347(17)45615-1
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
25 Lipshultz L, Thomas AJ Jr, Khera M. Surgical management of male infertility. In AJ Wein, LR Kavoussi, AC Novick et al., eds, Campbell-Walsh Urology, 9th edn. New York: WB Saunders, chapter 20, 2007; 1: 654–717
Google Scholar
26 Shlansky-Goldberg RD, VanArsdalen KN, Rutter CM et al. Percutaneous varicocele embolization versus surgical ligation for the treatment of infertility: changes in seminal variables and pregnancy outcomes. J Vasc Interv Radiol 1997; 8: 759–67
10.1016/S1051-0443(97)70657-2
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
27 Sautter T, Sulser T, Suter S, Gretener H, Hauri D. Treatment of varicocele: a prospective randomized comparison of laparoscopy versus antegrade sclerotherapy. Eur Urol 2002; 41: 398–400
10.1016/S0302-2838(02)00022-2
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
28 Yavetz H, Levy R, Papo J et al. Efficacy of varicocele embolization versus ligation of the left internal spermatic vein for improvement of sperm quality. Int J Androl 1992; 15: 338–44
10.1111/j.1365-2605.1992.tb01133.x
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume110, Issue10

November 2012

Pages 1536-1542

Open non-microsurgical, laparoscopic or open microsurgical varicocelectomy for male infertility: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

PATIENTS AND METHODS

RESULTS

CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Open non-microsurgical, laparoscopic or open microsurgical varicocelectomy for male infertility: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

PATIENTS AND METHODS

RESULTS

CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information