Cost-effectiveness analysis reveals microsurgical varicocele repair is superior to percutaneous embolization in the treatment of male infertility

A cost outcome study of varicocoele embolisation and future pregnancy in an Australian public hospital setting

INTRODUCTION

Varicocoele is commonly encountered in males with infertility. Studies have shown that varicocoele repair (surgery or embolisation) can improve the rate of subsequent pregnancy. In Australia, there have been no studies assessing the cost of varicocoele embolisation and current practice is based on international data. This study aimed to assess the cost of varicocoele embolisation and estimate the treatment cost per pregnancy.

METHODS

Retrospective cost-outcome study of patients treated by embolisation between January 2018 and 2023. A bottom-up approach was used to calculate procedure costs whereas a top-down approach was used to calculate costs for all other patient services, including direct and indirect costs. To calculate cost per pregnancy, costs were adjusted according to existing published data on the rate of pregnancy after embolisation.

RESULTS

Costing data from 18 patients were included, of median age 33.5 years (range 26-60) and median varicocoele grade 2.5 (range 1-3). All patients had unilateral treatment, most commonly via right internal jugular (16 patients, 89%) and using a 0.035″ system (17 patients, 94%). The median cost for the entire treatment including procedural, non-procedural, ward and peri-procedural costs was AUD$2208.10 (USD$1405 or EUR€1314), range AUD$1691-7051. The projected cost to the healthcare system per pregnancy was AUD$5387 (USD$3429 or EUR€3207).

CONCLUSION

Total varicocoele embolisation cost and the cost per-pregnancy were lower than for both embolisation and surgical repair in existing international studies. Patients undergoing varicocoele treatment should have the option to access an interventional radiologist to realise the benefits of this low-cost pinhole procedure.

Do sclero-embolization procedures have advantages over surgical ligature in treating varicocele in children, adolescents and adults? Results from a systematic review and meta-analysis

We aimed to systematically review complications, and recurrence rate of varicocele treatment by comparing the surgical ligature versus sclero-embolization techniques in children, adolescents and adults. The secondary outcomes were the evaluation of semen parameters and spontaneous pregnancy rate in adults. The review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework. Continuous variables were pooled using the inverse variance of the mean difference (MD) with a fixed effect, and 95% confidence interval (CI). The incidences of complications were pooled using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Method with the random effect model and reported as Odds Ratio (OR), and 95% CI. Statistical significance was set two-tail p-value < 0.05. Twenty studies were included. Incidence of postoperative hydrocele was significantly higher in the surgical ligation group (OR 3.06 95% CI 1.06-8.88, p = 0.04). Incidence of postoperative orchiepidydimitys was significantly higher in sclero-embolization group (OR 0.26 95% CI 0.08-0.85, p = 0.02). Presence of normal spermatozoa was significantly higher sclero-embolization group compared with the surgical ligature group (MD 2.54% 95% CI 0.43-4.65, p = 0.02). No difference was found in overall complications, wound infection, testis pain, surgical site hematoma, total sperm count, sperm motility, pregnancy and recurrence rate. This review confirms that current data does still not support the superiority of one type of treatment over other ones.

Varicocele embolization with sclerosing agents leads to lower radiation exposure and procedural costs than coils: Data from a real-life before and after study

Objectives

To investigate clinical outcomes, radiation exposure and procedural costs associated with percutaneous varicocoele embolization using coils and sclerosing agents (SAs) in a cohort of young‐adult men.

Materials and methods

Data from consecutive men treated with percutaneous varicocoele embolization using coils and SA between 2017 and 2021 were analyzed. The allocation was based on a change of policy occurred in June 2020 with the substitution of coils with SA (before and after study). Semen analysis values were based on 2010 WHO reference criteria. Anatomic variants of gonadal veins were categorized according to Jargiello et al. Intraoperative radiation dose and procedural costs were collected for each patient. Descriptive statistics and linear regression models were used to describe the association between clinical parameters with procedural costs and radiation exposure.

Results

One hundred sixteen men were included, of whom 76 (65.5%) received coils, and 40 (34.5%) received SA. Baseline characteristics of the two study groups did not differ. A type 3 Jargiello anatomic variation of left gonadal vein was found in 45.7% of cases. Radiation dose was lower in the SA group as compared to the coils one (13.2 [7–43] vs. 19.8 [12–57] Gy/cm²; p < 0.001). Similarly, procedural costs were lower for the SA group (169.6 [169–199] € vs. 642.5 [561–775] €; p < 0.001). At follow‐up, pain and sperm variables significantly improved in both groups (p < 0.01), without differences among the embolic materials. Linear regression model revealed that coils use was associated with higher radiation exposure (beta 8.8, p = 0.02) than SA after accounting for anatomic variation of gonadal vein, body mass index, and vascular access.

Conclusions

SA and coils for varicocoele embolization are equally safe and effective. The use of SA was associated with lower radiation exposure and procedural costs than coils. These results should be considered in terms of public health cost and patient's safety.

Hypogonadism is independently associated with varicocele repair in a contemporary cohort of men in the USA

We aimed to identify demographic and clinical predictors of varicocele repair in a contemporary cohort of men in the USA. We queried the 2009-2015 MarketScan Database using relevant ICD9, ICD10, and CPT codes to identify all 18-45 year olds with varicoceles. Differences in age, area of residence, clinical characteristics, and medical management between men who did and did not undergo varicocelectomy (open, laparoscopic, or microsurgical) during the study period were compared using unpaired t -tests and Chi-squared tests for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate age, semen analyses, and serum hormone assessment as predictors of varicocele repair. SAS version 9.4 was used for all statistical analyses. Significance was set at P < 0.05. Approximately 40% of men with varicoceles underwent repair, primarily through an open approach. Men who underwent repair were more likely to have a diagnosis of male infertility (15.5% vs 7.9%, P < 0.001) and male hypogonadism (3.4% vs 0.9%) and were more likely to complete semen analyses (36.1% vs 12.2%, P < 0.001) and serum testosterone evaluation (42.5% vs 18.8%, P < 0.001). In multivariable regression models, the strongest predictors of varicocele repair were semen analysis (OR = 2.78, 95% CI: 2.56-3.02), age 18-25 years (OR = 2.66, 95% CI: 2.36-2.98), and serum testosterone evaluation (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.51-1.86). Although male infertility remains the most important indication for varicocele repair, male hypogonadism is emerging as an independent predictor of varicocelectomy, which may represent a change in the clinical management of varicoceles in the USA.

Percutaneous embolization of varicocele: technique, indications, relative contraindications, and complications

There are several options for the treatment of varicocele, including surgical repair either by open or microsurgical approach, laparoscopy, or through percutaneous embolization of the internal spermatic vein. The ultimate goal of varicocele treatment relies on the occlusion of the dilated veins that drain the testis. Percutaneous embolization offers a rapid recovery and can be successfully accomplished in approximately 90% of attempts. However, the technique demands interventional radiologic expertise and has potential serious complications, including vascular perforation, coil migration, and thrombosis of pampiniform plexus. This review discusses the common indications, relative contraindications, technical details, and risks associated with percutaneous embolization of varicocele.

Antegrade scrotal sclerotherapy of internal spermatic veins for varicocele treatment: technique, complications, and results

Varicocele repair is mainly indicated in young adult patients with clinical palpable varicocele and abnormal semen parameters. Varicocele treatment is associated with a significant improvement in sperm concentration, motility, morphology, and pregnancy rate. Antegrade scrotal sclerotherapy (ASS) represented one of the main alternatives to the traditional inguinal or suprainguinal surgical ligation. This article reviews the use of ASS for varicocele treatment. We provide a brief overview of the history of the procedure and present our methods used in ASS. In addition, we review complication and success of ASS, including our own retrospective data of treating 674 patients over the last 17 years. Herein, we analyzed step by step the ASS technique and described our results with an original modified technique with a long follow-up. Between December 1997 and December 2014, we performed 674 ASS. Mean operative time was 14 min (range 9 to 50 min). No significant intraoperative complications were reported. Within 90 days from the procedure, postoperative complications were recorded in overall 49 (7.2%) patients. No major complications were recorded. A persistent/recurrent varicocele was detected in 40 (5.9%) cases. In 32/40 (80%) cases, patients showed preoperative grade III varicoceles. In patients with a low sperm number before surgery, sperm count improved from 13 × 10⁶ to 21 × 10⁶ ml⁻¹ (P < 0.001). The median value of the percentage of progressive motile forms at 1 h improved from 25% to 45% (P < 0.001). Percentage of normal forms increased from 17% before surgery to 35% 1 year after the procedure (P < 0.001). In the subgroup of the 168 infertile patients, 52 (31%) fathered offspring at a 12-month-minimum follow-up. Therefore, ASS is an effective minimal invasive treatment for varicocele with low recurrence/persistence rate.

Clinical Outcomes of Varicocele Repair in Infertile Men: A Review

Varicoceles are a major cause of impaired spermatogenesis and the most common correctable cause of male infertility. They are found in approximately 40% of men with primary infertility and 80% of men with secondary infertility, although they also occur in 12% of men with normal semen parameters. The presence of a varicocele does not always affect spermatogenesis, as it has been reported that only 20% of men with documented varicoceles suffer fertility problems. However, varicocele repair appears to have beneficial effects in men with impaired semen parameters and palpable varicoceles. Currently, the main procedures employed for varicocele repair are microsurgical subinguinal or inguinal varicocelectomy, laparoscopic varicocelectomy, and radiological percutaneous embolization. Microsurgical varicocelectomy appears to be the optimal treatment in most cases, whereas the other procedures are useful only in specific cases. After treatment, it typically takes 3 to 6 months for patients' semen parameters to improve; thus, other therapies, including assisted reproductive technology, should be considered if infertility persists after this interval, especially in older couples. Controversies still remain regarding how varicoceles in certain subgroups, such as adolescents or men with azoospermia, should be treated. Due to their relatively high prevalence rate among the general population, varicoceles can occur concomitantly with other conditions that cause impaired spermatogenesis. Further studies are necessary in order to identify the patients who are most likely to benefit from treatment. In this review, we sought to summarize the issues currently associated with varicocele treatment in infertile men.