Surgery or embolization for varicoceles in subfertile men.

Maxima Medical Centre, De Run 4600, Veldhoven, Netherlands, 5504 DB.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 01/2012; 10:CD000479. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000479.pub5
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A varicocele is a meshwork of distended blood vessels in the scrotum, usually left-sided, due to dilatation of the spermatic vein. Although the concept that a varicocele causes male subfertility has been around for more than 50 years now, the mechanisms by which a varicocele would affect fertility have not yet been satisfactorily explained. Neither is there sufficient evidence to explain the mechanisms by which varicocelectomy would restore fertility. Furthermore, it has been questioned whether a causal relation exists at all between the distension of the pampiniform plexus (a network of many small veins found in the human male spermatic cord) and impairment of fertility.
To evaluate the effect of varicocele treatment on live birth and pregnancy rate in subfertile couples where the male has a varicocele.
We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (12 September 2003 to January 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2012), MEDLINE (January 1966 to January 2012), EMBASE (January 1985 to January 2012), PsycINFO (to Week 1 2012) and reference lists of articles. In addition, we handsearched specialist journals in the field from their first issue until 2012. We also checked cross-references, references from review articles and contacted researchers in the field.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they were relevant to the clinical question posed. If they reported pregnancy rates or live birth rates as an outcome measure, and if they reported data in treated (surgical ligation or radiological embolization of the internal spermatic vein) compared to untreated or placebo groups. Two authors independently screened potentially relevant trials. Any differences of opinion were resolved by consensus (none occurred for this review).
Ten studies met the inclusion criteria for the review. For one study we had only data from a published abstract. All ten studies only included men from couples with subfertility problems; one excluded men with sperm counts less than 5 million per mL and one excluded men with sperm counts less than 2 million per mL, with or without progressive motility of less than 10%. Two trials involving clinical varicoceles included some men with normal semen analysis. Three studies specifically addressed only men with subclinical varicoceles. Studies were excluded from meta-analysis if they made comparisons other than those specified above.
The meta-analysis included 894 men. No studies reported live birth. The combined fixed-effect odds ratio (OR) of the 10 studies for the outcome of pregnancy was 1.47 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 2.05, very low quality evidence), favouring the intervention. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome was 17, suggesting benefit of varicocele treatment over expectant management for pregnancy rate in subfertile couples in whom varicocele in the man was the only abnormal finding. Omission of the studies including men with normal semen analysis and subclinical varicocele, some of which had semen analysis improvement as the primary outcome rather than live birth or pregnancy rate, was the subject of a planned subgroup analysis. The outcome of the subgroup analysis (five studies) also favoured treatment, with a combined OR 2.39 (95% CI 1.56 to 3.66). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome was 7. The evidence was suggestive rather than conclusive, as the main analysis was subject to fairly high statistical heterogeneity (I(2) = 67%) and findings were no longer significant when a random-effects model was used or when analysis was restricted to higher quality studies.
There is evidence suggesting that treatment of a varicocele in men from couples with otherwise unexplained subfertility may improve a couple's chance of pregnancy. However, findings are inconclusive as the quality of the available evidence is very low and more research is needed with live birth or pregnancy rate as the primary outcome.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Ashok Agarwal ( Damayanthi Durairajanayagam ( Stefan S du Plessis ( This peer-reviewed article can be downloaded, printed and distributed freely for any purposes (see copyright notice below).
    Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 11/2014; 12(1). DOI:10.1186/1477-7827-12-112 · 2.41 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Varicocele is the most common cause of male infertility and is generally correctable or at least improvable by various surgical and radiologic techniques. Therefore, it seems simple and reasonable that varicocele should be treated in infertile men with varicocele. However, the role of varicocele repair for the treatment of subfertile men has been questioned during the past decades. Although varicocele repair can induce improvement of semen quality, the obvious benefit of spontaneous pregnancy has not been shown through several meta-analyses. Recently, a well-designed randomized clinical trial was introduced, and, subsequently, a novel meta-analysis was published. The results of these studies advocate that varicocele repair be regarded as a standard treatment modality in infertile men with clinical varicocele and abnormal semen parameters, which is also supported by current clinical guidelines. Microsurgical varicocelectomy has been regarded as the gold standard compared to other surgical techniques and radiological management in terms of the recurrence rate and the pregnancy rate. However, none of the methods has been proven through well-designed clinical trials to be superior to the others in the ability to improve fertility. Accordingly, high-quality data from well-designed studies are needed to resolve unanswered questions and update current knowledge. Upcoming trials should be designed to define the best technique and also to define how to select the best candidates who will benefit from varicocele repair.
    Korean journal of urology 11/2014; 55(11):703-709. DOI:10.4111/kju.2014.55.11.703
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Assisted reproductive technology (ART) is a common treatment of choice for many couples facing infertility issues, be it due to male or female factor, or idiopathic. Employment of ART techniques, however, come with its own challenges as the in vitro environment is not nearly as ideal as the in vivo environment, where reactive oxygen species (ROS) build-up leading to oxidative stress is kept in check by the endogenous antioxidants system. While physiological amounts of ROS are necessary for normal reproductive function in vivo, in vitro manipulation of gametes and embryos exposes these cells to excessive ROS production either by endogenous or exogenous environmental factors. In this review, we discuss the sources of ROS in an in vitro clinical setting and the influence of oxidative stress on gamete/embryo quality and the outcome of IVF/ICSI. Sources of ROS and different strategies of overcoming the excessive generation of ROS in vitro are also highlighted. Endogenously, the gametes and the developing embryo become sources of ROS. Multiple exogenous factors act as potential sources of ROS, including exposure to visible light, composition of culture media, pH and temperature, oxygen concentration, centrifugation during spermatozoa preparation, ART technique involving handling of gamete/embryo and cryopreservation technique (freeze/thawing process). Finally, the use of antioxidants as agents to minimize ROS generation in the in vitro environment and as oral therapy is highlighted. Both enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidants are discussed and the outcome of studies using these antioxidants as oral therapy in the male or female or its use in vitro in media is presented. While results of studies using certain antioxidant agents are promising, the current body of evidence as a whole suggests the need for further well-designed and larger scale randomized controlled studies, as well as research to minimize oxidative stress conditions in the clinical ART setting.
    Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 01/2014; · 2.41 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Nov 25, 2014