Varicocelectomy with primary gubernaculum veins closure: A randomised clinical trial

Surgical or radiological treatment for varicoceles in subfertile men

BACKGROUND

Varicoceles are associated with male subfertility; however, the mechanisms by which varicoceles affect fertility have yet to be satisfactorily explained. Several treatment options exist, including surgical or radiological treatment, however the safest and most efficient treatment remains unclear.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of surgical and radiological treatment of varicoceles on live birth rate, adverse events, pregnancy rate, varicocele recurrence, and quality of life amongst couples where the adult male has a varicocele, and the female partner of childbearing age has no fertility problems.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases on 4 April 2020: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also searched the trial registries and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) if they were relevant to the clinical question posed and compared different forms of surgical ligation, different forms of radiological treatments, surgical treatment compared to radiological treatment, or one of these aforementioned treatment forms compared to non-surgical methods, delayed treatment, or no treatment. We extracted data if the studies reported on live birth, adverse events, pregnancy, varicocele recurrence, and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of abstracts and full-text publications, alongside data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment, were done dually using the Covidence software. When we had sufficient data, we calculated random-effects (Mantel-Haenszel) meta-analyses; otherwise, we reported results narratively. We used the I² statistic to analyse statistical heterogeneity. We planned to use funnel plots to assess publication bias in meta-analyses with at least 10 included studies. We dually rated the risk of bias of studies using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 1897 citations after de-duplicating the search results. We excluded 1773 during title and abstract screening. From the 113 new full texts assessed in addition to the 10 studies (11 references) included in the previous version of this review, we included 38 new studies, resulting in a total of 48 studies (59 references) in the review providing data for 5384 participants. Two studies (three references) are ongoing studies and two studies are awaiting classification. Treatment versus non-surgical, non-radiological, delayed, or no treatment Two studies comparing surgical or radiological treatment versus no treatment reported on live birth with differing directions of effect. As a result, we are uncertain whether surgical or radiological treatment improves live birth rates when compared to no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 26.93; 2 RCTs, N = 204; I² = 74%, very low-certainty evidence). Treatment may improve pregnancy rates compared to delayed or no treatment (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.26; 13 RCTs, N = 1193; I² = 65%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that couples with no or delayed treatment have a 21% chance of pregnancy, whilst the pregnancy rate after surgical or radiological treatment is between 22% and 48%. We identified no evidence on adverse events, varicocele recurrence, or quality of life for this comparison. Surgical versus radiological treatment We are uncertain about the effect of surgical versus radiological treatment on live birth and on the following adverse events: hydrocele formation, pain, epididymitis, haematoma, and suture granuloma. We are uncertain about the effect of surgical versus radiological treatment on pregnancy rate (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.70; 5 RCTs, N = 456, low-certainty evidence) and varicocele recurrence (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.08; 3 RCTs, N = 380, low-certainty evidence). We identified no evidence on quality of life for this comparison. Surgery versus other surgical treatment We identified 19 studies comparing microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment to any other surgical treatment. Microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment probably improves pregnancy rates slightly compared to other surgical treatments (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.36; 12 RCTs, N = 1473, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that couples with microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment have a 10% to 14% chance of pregnancy after treatment, whilst the pregnancy rate in couples after other surgical treatments is 10%. This procedure also probably reduces the risk of varicocele recurrence (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29, 0.79; 14 RCTs, N = 1565, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that 0.4% to 1.1% of men undergoing microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment experience recurrent varicocele, whilst 1.4% of men undergoing other surgical treatments do. Results for the following adverse events were inconclusive: hydrocele formation, haematoma, abdominal distension, testicular atrophy, wound infection, scrotal pain, and oedema. We identified no evidence on live birth or quality of life for this comparison. Nine studies compared open inguinal surgical treatment to retroperitoneal surgical treatment. Due to small sample sizes and methodological limitations, we identified neither treatment type as superior or inferior to the other regarding adverse events, pregnancy rates, or varicocele recurrence. We identified no evidence on live birth or quality of life for this comparison. Radiological versus other radiological treatment One study compared two types of radiological treatment (sclerotherapy versus embolisation) and reported 13% varicocele recurrence in both groups. Due to the broad confidence interval, no valid conclusion could be drawn (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.16 to 6.20; 1 RCT, N = 30, very low-certainty evidence). We identified no evidence on live birth, adverse events, pregnancy, or quality of life for this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the limited evidence, it remains uncertain whether any treatment (surgical or radiological) compared to no treatment in subfertile men may be of benefit on live birth rates; however, treatment may improve the chances for pregnancy. The evidence was also insufficient to determine whether surgical treatment was superior to radiological treatment. However, microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment probably improves pregnancy rates and reduces the risk of varicocele recurrence compared to other surgical treatments. High-quality, head-to-head comparative RCTs focusing on live birth rate and also assessing adverse events and quality of life are warranted.

Evaluation of clinical effects of microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy with and without testicular delivery

The aim of this study was to access whether microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy (MSV) with testicular delivery has a better therapeutic effect than MSV without testicular delivery, including semen quality, serum testosterone (T) level and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF)-5 score in infertility male patients with varicocele. In this prospective study, 181 patients were included and they chose the treatment by themselves. A total of 114 patients who received MSV without testicular delivery (TD) and 67 patients who received MSV with TD were followed-up 6 months after the operation. Semen parameters, serum T level and IIEF-5 scores were recorded before and 6 months after the operation. Results showed that MSV with or without TD could improve semen quality, serum T level and IIEF-5 score. For semen quality 6 months after the operation, there was no significant difference between patients received MSV with or without TD. But in patients with varicocele of grade III, MSV without testicular delivery improved the sperm concentration and motility more. And patients received MSV without TD have a higher T level 6 months after the operation, especially in patients ≤27 years. MSV with TD is not superior to that without, but this should be verified in more samples and a better designed randomised controlled study in the future.

Comparison between microsurgical varicocelectomy with and without testicular delivery for treatment of varicocele: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The present study was conducted to assess the semen parameters, complications and clinical effect of microsurgical varicocelectomy with testicular delivery (TD) for treatment of varicocele. Relevant studies were collected and reviewed systemically from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases and the Cochrane Library and a meta-analysis was performed. Relative ratio (RR), standardised mean difference (SMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were adopted to estimate the outcome measures. Eight articles and a total of 1,139 subjects including 487 patients with TD in microsurgical varicocelectomy and 652 patients without TD were enrolled in this meta-analysis. The pooled RR indicated that microsurgical varicocelectomy with TD increased the incidence of orchiepididymitis (RR = 4.36, 95% CI = 1.12-16.99, p = 0.034) and scrotal oedema (RR = 4.25, 95% CI = 2.40-7.54, p = 0.000) than microsurgical varicocelectomy without TD postoperatively. In conclusion, compared to microsurgical varicocelectomy without TD, TD to further ligate the gubernacular veins in microsurgical varicocelectomy results in a higher incidence of orchiepididymitis and scrotal oedema and take longer operation time. However, TD may not have any beneficial influences on semen parameters, serum testosterone, varicocele occurrence, wound infection and natural conception.