Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of microsurgical varicocelectomy (MV) compared with Palomo surgery for male varicocele. Methods MEDLINE (1985-October 2008), EMbase (1990-October 2008), China Biology Medicine Literature Disc Database (1979-October 2008), CMCC (1979-October 2008) and CNKI (1990-October 2008) were searched electronically by computer. Addtionally, four relevant journals were searched manually to get randomized controlled clinical trials about the comparison of MV and Palomo in the treatment of varicocele. Two reviewers screened the literature, evaluated the document quality, extracted the data independently, and checked the result together. RevMan software version 4.3.1 developed by the Cochrane Collaborative was used for meta-analysis. Results Seven RCTs reporting data on effectiveness and safety of MV versus palomo surgery were included. Meta-analyses showed that MV was superior to palomo surgery in improving sperm motility [RR= 1.21, 95%CI (1.09, 1.34), P=0.000 5], concentration [RR= 1.35, 95%CI (1.20, 1.51), Plt;0.000 01] and also postoperation natural pregnancy rate [RR= 1.34，95%CI (1.08, 1.66), P=0.008]. While the MV group had a longer operation time in unilateral [WMD= 23.01 min, 95%CI (16.86, 29.16), Plt;0.000 01] or bilateral varicocele [WMD= 34.05 min, 95%CI (4.9, 63.21), P=0.02] than Palomo surgery. The recovery time difference in the two groups was not significant. The incidence of varicocele recurrence was significantly lower in the MV group than in the Palomo group [RR= 0.17, 95%CI (0.10, 0.31), Plt;0.000 01], and the incidence of postoperative hydrocele was also significantly lower in the MV group than in the Palomo group [RR= 0.10, 95%CI (0.05, 0.23), Plt;0.000 01]. The incidences of wound infection, scrotal hematoma and scrotal pain were similar in both groups. Conclusion The evidence shows that MV is superior to Palomo surgery because of the higher sperm improvement rate, higher natural pregnancy rate and lower incidence of recurrence and hydrocele. But the operation time is longer. The long-term effect and overall effectiveness of MV need more high-quality RCTs to confirm.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the efficiency and safety of interventional embolization versus laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of varicocele. MethodsWe searched the Chinese Journal Full-text Database, Wanfang Medical Journal Database, and VIP Chinese Science and Technology Journal Full-text Database with such keywords as interventional therapy, embolization, laparoscope, and varicocele. For PubMed and Cochrane Library, MESH terms or keywords were interventional embolization, interventional therapy, embolization, laparoscope, laparoscopic surgery, and varicocele. All database were searched up to March 2015. Then we selected trials comparing interventional embolization versus laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of varicocele according to the including criteria. We assessed the quality of the included studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and conducted meta-analysis with revman 5.2 for the primary outcomes sperm improvement rate, recurrence rate, complication rate, pregnant rate, etc. ResultsWe included 7 trials comparing interventional embolization with laparoscopic surgery, including 1 prospective study and 6 retrospective studies, with a total of 349 patients receiving interventional therapy and 400 patients receiving laparoscopic surgery. Meta analysis of the included studies showed that there were no significant differences for sperm improvement rate[OR=1.17, 95%CI (0.70, 1.96), P=0.54], pregnant rate[OR=0.58, 95%CI (0.29, 1.13), P=0.11], recurrence rate[OR=0.84, 95CI% (0.40, 1.78), P=0.66] or complication rate[OR=0.68, 95%CI (0.34, 1.32), P=0.25] between the two groups. ConclusionPresent evidence shows that there is no significant difference between interventional embolization and laparoscopic surgery for varicocele.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the effectiveness and safety of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) for varicocele. MethodsSuch databases as The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, and WanFang Data were electronically searched for studies about LESS and traditional laparoscopy for varicocele till March 1st, 2013. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, literature was screened, data were extracted, and the methodological quality of included studies was also assessed. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. ResultsSeven RCTs involving 452 cases were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, there was no significant difference between LESS and traditional laparoscopy for varicocele on post-operational complications (RR=0.57, 95%CI 0.26 to 1.27, P=0.17), duration of hospital stay (MD=-0.30, 95%CI-0.87 to 0.26, P=0.30), improvement of semen parameters, and blood loss. However, LESS had longer duration of operation (MD=11.26, 95%CI 3.62 to 18.90, P=0.004). ConclusionThe effectiveness and safety of LESS and traditional laparoscopy for varicocele are similar, and LESS could achieve more beautiful and natural effects which has longer surgery time on account of non-proficiency in surgery and equipment. Due to the limited quantity and quality of the included studies, the above conclusion requires to be proved by more high quality randomized controlled trials.
Varicocele (VC) is one of the common diseases of the male genitourinary system, and its incidence is higher in young adults. Among them, 80%-98% of VC are more likely to occur in the left spermatic vein. Previous research has found that VC could affect the temperature of the local microenvironment of the testis, oxidative stress process in the spermatogenic environment, mitochondrial function of sperm, endocrine system, and apoptosis of testes and epididymal cells. Therefore, VC will have an important impact on spermatogenic process of the testicles to cause male infertility. However, the specific molecular mechanism of VC affecting male spermatogenesis has not been fully studied. Therefore, this article will review the effect and mechanism of VC on testicular spermatogenesis.