Search

The objective was to assess whether men suffering from testicular retraction secondary to hyperactive cremaster muscle reflex have an anatomic difference in the thickness of the cremaster muscle in comparison to men who do not have retraction. From March 2021 to December 2021, 21 men underwent microsurgical subinguinal cremaster muscle release (MSCMR) on 33 spermatic cord units, as 12 of them had bilateral surgery, at Surgicare of South Austin Ambulatory Surgery Center in Austin, TX, USA. During that same time frame, 36 men underwent subinguinal microsurgical varicocele repair on 41 spermatic cord units, as 5 were bilateral for infertility. The thickness of cremaster muscles was measured by the operating surgeon in men undergoing MSCMR and varicocele repair. Comparison was made between the cremaster muscle thickness in men with testicular retraction due to a hyperactive cremaster muscle reflex undergoing MSCMR and the cremaster muscle thickness in men undergoing varicocele repair for infertility with no history of testicular retraction, which served as an anatomic control. The mean cremaster muscle thickness in men who underwent MSCMR was significantly greater than those undergoing varicocele repair for infertility, with a mean cremaster muscle thickness of 3.9 (standard deviation [s.d.]: 1.2) mm vs 1.0 (s.d.: 0.4) mm, respectively. Men with testicular retraction secondary to a hyperactive cremaster muscle reflex demonstrate thicker cremaster muscles than controls, those undergoing varicocele repair. An anatomic difference may be a beginning to understanding the pathology in men who struggle with testicular retraction., Competing Interests: None

Objective: To assess whether varicocele repair improves oxidative stress (OS) measured by the MiOXSYS system., Methods: A prospective clinical trial was performed on male patients ages 18 and older who had not fathered a child within the previous 12 months, with a clinically palpable varicocele, who completed all aspects of the study who were enrolled through a couple's fertility center with on-site andrology laboratory testing. Men that met inclusion criteria were offered enrollment in the clinical trial and signed informed consents to participate, after having a history and physical examination. Semen analysis with OS measurement was obtained preoperatively and repeat semen analysis with OS measurement obtained 3 months following varicocele repair. Changes in postoperative semen analysis parameters, static oxidation reduction potential (sORP), and sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) indices when available were compared to these values preoperatively., Results: Of the 177 subjects, 49 subjects met inclusion criteria. The data of OS suggests negative correlations with major semen parameters. Semen parameters and OS revealed statistically significant improvements following varicocele repair from baseline. Of the 49 subjects included, 22 completed all aspects of testing postoperatively. Subgroup analysis shows statistically significant negative correlations between OS and semen parameters. Forward progressive motility, SDF, and sORP demonstrated statistically significant improvements 3 months following varicocele repair in comparison to preoperatively., Conclusion: Varicocele repair in infertile men improved sORP as measured by the clinically useful MiOXSYS system., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Varicoceles adversely impact semen quality and sperm DNA fragmentation, which typically improve with surgical repair. Some men with varicoceles have ipsilateral testicular atrophy due to damage from the varicocele. This study assessed semen quality and the sperm DNA fragmentation index (DFI) response to varicocele repair in men with ipsilateral testicular atrophy (TA) versus men with no testicular atrophy (NTA). Semen parameter values and DFI in both groups were compared preoperatively and postoperatively. The Mann-Whitney U test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used where appropriate. There were 20 men in the TA group and 121 men in the NTA group with no difference in age, varicocele grade, or preoperative semen parameter values between the two groups. The NTA group had a higher preoperative DFI than the TA group. Both groups showed improvement in semen quality postoperatively, only the TA group showed a significant improvement in DFI, whereas the NTA group showed significant improvements in several parameter values and DFI. The change from preoperative to postoperative parameter values when comparing the two groups revealed a difference in total sperm motile count and DFI, with a larger mean improvement in the NTA group than in the TA group. Both TA and NTA groups showed improved semen quality and DFI after varicocele repair, but the NTA group had more improvement than the TA group. However, only total motile count (TMC) and DFI had a significantly greater mean change in preoperative to postoperative response in the NTA group than in the TA group., Competing Interests: None

Purpose: Varicocele has been associated with high seminal oxidative stress (OS), impaired semen quality, and reduced male fertility potential. However, the exact mechanism(s) underlying the development of varicocele-mediated infertility and the cause-effect relationship between varicocele and testicular dysfunction are not fully understood. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) is to investigate the impact of varicocele on testicular OS markers and sperm parameters in experimental animals with varicocele as compared to animals without varicocele. Materials and Methods: A literature search was performed using the Scopus and PubMed databases on studies that investigated testicular OS markers and sperm parameters in animals with varicocele. The primary outcomes included malondialdehyde (MDA) (nmol/mg) levels whereas the secondary outcomes included total sperm count (×106 ), sperm vitality (%), total sperm motility (%), and sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) (%). Standardized mean difference (SMD) (95% confidence interval [CI]) was chosen to express the effect size. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cambridge Quality Checklist. Results: Out of 76 identified articles, 6 studies on rats were included in the meta-analysis. The analysis showed a significant increase of MDA (SMD: 15.61 [1.93, 29.29]; p=0.03) in rats with varicocele vs. controls. We also observed a significant decrease in total sperm count (SMD: -17.45 [-28.97, -5.93]; p<0.01), sperm vitality (SMD: -16.41 [-26.30, -6.52]; p<0.01), total sperm motility (SMD: -17.67 [-24.90, -10.44]; p<0.01), and a significant increase of SDF (SMD: 7.41 [1.23, 13.59]; p=0.02), in rats with varicocele vs. controls. The quality of the included studies was ranked as high. Conclusions: This SRMA indicates a significant increase in levels of testicular MDA and SDF and a reduction of sperm quality in experimental animals with varicocele. These findings support the potential role of testicular OS in the development of varicocele-induced testicular damage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Varicoceles can be a source of elevated seminal oxidative stress (OS) and sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF). However, it remains unclear whether varicocele repair (VR) could reduce these parameters. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) aims to investigate the impact of VR on SDF and seminal malondialdehyde (MDA). Materials and Methods: A literature search was performed in Scopus, PubMed, Ovid, Embase, and Cochrane databases. This SRMA included randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting the pre- and postoperative levels of SDF and seminal OS in infertile men with clinical varicocele that underwent VR. Subgroup analyses included techniques of VR and SDF testing. The effect size was expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD). Results: Out of 1,632 abstracts assessed for eligibility, 29 studies with 1,491 infertile men were included. The analysis showed a significant reduction in SDF after VR, compared to preoperative values (SMD –1.125, 95% confidence interval [CI] –1.410, –0.840; p<0.0001) with high inter-study heterogeneity (I2 =90.965%). Reduction in SDF was evident with microsurgical technique and non-microsurgical inguinal approaches (SMD –1.014, 95% CI –1.263, –0.765; p<0.0001, and SMD –1.495, 95% CI –2.116, –0.873; p<0.0001), respectively. Reduction in SDF was significant irrespective of testing was done by sperm chromatin dispersion (SMD –2.197, 95% CI –3.187, –1.207; p<0.0001), sperm chromatin structure assay (SMD –0.857, 95% CI –1.156, –0.559; p<0.0001) or TUNEL (SMD –1.599, 95% CI –2.478, –0.719; p<0.0001). A significant decrease in seminal MDA levels was observed following VR (SMD –2.450, 95% CI –3.903 to –0.997, p=0.001) with high inter-study heterogeneity (I2 =93.7%). Conclusions: Using pre- and post-intervention data, this SRMA indicates a significant reduction in SDF and seminal MDA levels in infertile men with clinical varicocele treated with VR. These findings may have important implications for the future management of this selected group of infertile patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Varicocele is a common occurrence, particularly among men with primary and secondary infertility. There has been extensive research into the management of varicocele in the context of male infertility. This article aims to explore the variations in clinical practice in diagnosing and managing varicoceles in infertile men. A summary of the current recommendations on varicocele management from professional societies is included. Substantial gaps in knowledge persist regarding varicoceles and male infertility, with significant variation in clinical approaches, despite the wealth of existing data in the medical literature. The existing literature leaves many questions surrounding varicocele management in infertile men unanswered. This lack of clarity contributes to the ongoing controversy among clinicians in the field. New research is essential to address these contentious points and areas of debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose The purpose of this meta-analysis is to study the impact of varicocele repair in the largest cohort of infertile males with clinical varicocele by including all available studies, with no language restrictions, comparing intra-person conventional semen parameters before and after the repair of varicoceles. Materials and Methods The meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA-P and MOOSE guidelines. A systematic search was performed in Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases. Eligible studies were selected according to the PICOS model (Population: infertile male patients with clinical varicocele; Intervention: varicocele repair; Comparison: intra-person before-after varicocele repair; Outcome: conventional semen parameters; Study type: randomized controlled trials [RCTs], observational and case-control studies).Out of 1,632 screened abstracts, 351 articles (23 RCTs, 292 observational, and 36 case-control studies) were included in the quantitative analysis. The before-and-after analysis showed significant improvements in all semen parameters after varicocele repair (except sperm vitality); semen volume: standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.203, 95% CI: 0.129–0.278; p<0.001; I²=83.62%, Egger’s p=0.3329; sperm concentration: SMD 1.590, 95% CI: 1.474–1.706; p<0.001; I²=97.86%, Egger’s p<0.0001; total sperm count: SMD 1.824, 95% CI: 1.526–2.121; p<0.001; I²=97.88%, Egger’s p=0.0063; total motile sperm count: SMD 1.643, 95% CI: 1.318–1.968; p<0.001; I²=98.65%, Egger’s p=0.0003; progressive sperm motility: SMD 1.845, 95% CI: 1.537%–2.153%; p<0.001; I²=98.97%, Egger’s p<0.0001; total sperm motility: SMD 1.613, 95% CI 1.467%–1.759%; p<0.001; l2=97.98%, Egger’s p<0.001; sperm morphology: SMD 1.066, 95% CI 0.992%–1.211%; p<0.001; I²=97.87%, Egger’s p=0.1864. Conclusions The current meta-analysis is the largest to date using paired analysis on varicocele patients. In the current meta-analysis, almost all conventional semen parameters improved significantly following varicocele repair in infertile patients with clinical varicocele. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Despite the significant role of varicocele in the pathogenesis of male infertility, the impact of varicocele repair (VR) on conventional semen parameters remains controversial. Only a few systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) have evaluated the impact of VR on sperm concentration, total motility, and progressive motility, mostly using a before-after analytic approach. No SRMA to date has evaluated the change in conventional semen parameters after VR compared to untreated controls. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of VR on conventional semen parameters in infertile patients with clinical varicocele compared to untreated controls. Materials and Methods: A literature search was performed using Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases following the Population Intervention Comparison Outcome (PICOS) model (Population: infertile patients with clinical varicocele; Intervention: VR [any technique]; Comparison: infertile patients with clinical varicocele that were untreated; Outcome: sperm concentration, sperm total count, progressive sperm motility, total sperm motility, sperm morphology, and semen volume; Study type: randomized controlled trials and observational studies). Results: A total of 1,632 abstracts were initially assessed for eligibility. Sixteen studies were finally included with a total of 2,420 infertile men with clinical varicocele (1,424 patients treated with VR vs. 996 untreated controls). The analysis showed significantly improved post-operative semen parameters in patients compared to controls with regards to sperm concentration (standardized mean difference [SMD] 1.739; 95% CI 1.129 to 2.349; p<0.001; I2 =97.6%), total sperm count (SMD 1.894; 95% CI 0.566 to 3.222; p<0.05; I2 =97.8%), progressive sperm motility (SMD 3.301; 95% CI 2.164 to 4.437; p<0.01; I² =98.5%), total sperm motility (SMD 0.887; 95% CI 0.036 to 1.738; p=0.04; I² =97.3%) and normal sperm morphology (SMD 1.673; 95% CI 0.876 to 2.470; p<0.05; I2 =98.5%). All the outcomes showed a high inter-study heterogeneity, but the sensitivity analysis showed that no study was sensitive enough to change these results. Publication bias was present only in the analysis of the sperm concentration and progressive motility. No significant difference was found for the semen volume (SMD 0.313; 95% CI -0.242 to 0.868; I² =89.7%). Conclusions: This study provides a high level of evidence in favor of a positive effect of VR to improve conventional semen parameters in infertile men with clinical varicocele. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first SRMA to compare changes in conventional semen parameters after VR with changes in parameters of a control group over the same period. This is in contrast to other SRMAs which have compared semen parameters before and after VR, without reference to a control group. Our findings strengthen the available evidence and have a potential to upgrade professional societies’ practice recommendations favoring VR to improve conventional semen parameters in infertile men. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Varicocele is a common problem among infertile men. Varicocele repair (VR) is frequently performed to improve semen parameters and the chances of pregnancy. However, there is a lack of consensus about the diagnosis, indications for VR and its outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore global practice patterns on the management of varicocele in the context of male infertility. Materials and Methods: Sixty practicing urologists/andrologists from 23 countries contributed 382 multiple-choice-questions pertaining to varicocele management. These were condensed into an online questionnaire that was forwarded to clinicians involved in male infertility management through direct invitation. The results were analyzed for disagreement and agreement in practice patterns and, compared with the latest guidelines of international professional societies (American Urological Association [AUA], American Society for Reproductive Medicine [ASRM], and European Association of Urology [EAU]), and with evidence emerging from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, an expert opinion on each topic was provided based on the consensus of 16 experts in the field. Results: The questionnaire was answered by 574 clinicians from 59 countries. The majority of respondents were urologists/ uro-andrologists. A wide diversity of opinion was seen in every aspect of varicocele diagnosis, indications for repair, choice of technique, management of sub-clinical varicocele and the role of VR in azoospermia. A significant proportion of the responses were at odds with the recommendations of AUA, ASRM, and EAU. A large number of clinical situations were identified where no guidelines are available. Conclusions: This study is the largest global survey performed to date on the clinical management of varicocele for male infertility. It demonstrates: 1) a wide disagreement in the approach to varicocele management, 2) large gaps in the clinical practice guidelines from professional societies, and 3) the need for further studies on several aspects of varicocele management in infertile men. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]