REVIEW
Ahead of print publication  

Predictors of microsurgical varicocelectomy efficacy in male infertility treatment: critical assessment and systematization


1 Department of Urology and Andrology, Faculty of Fundamental Medicine, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow 119991, Russia
2 Department of Urology, Tashkent Medical Academy, Tashkent 100109, Uzbekistan
3 Republican Specialized Scientific-Practical Medical Center of Urology, Tashkent 100109, Uzbekistan

Date of Submission17-Aug-2021
Date of Acceptance26-Dec-2021
Date of Web Publication29-Mar-2022

Correspondence Address:
Azizbek B Shomarufov,
Department of Urology and Andrology, Faculty of Fundamental Medicine, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow 119991; Department of Urology, Tashkent Medical Academy, Tashkent 100109


Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/aja2021125

PMID: 35381691

  Abstract 


In this review, we tried to systematize all the evidence (from PubMed [MEDLINE], Scopus, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, Embase, and Google Scholar) from 1993 to 2021 on the predictors of microsurgical varicocelectomy efficacy in male infertility treatment. Regarding the outcomes of varicocele repair, we considered semen improvement and pregnancy and analyzed them separately. Based on the 2011 Oxford CEBM Levels of Evidence, we assigned a score to each trial that studied the role of the predictor. We systematized the studied predictors based on the total points, which were, in turn, calculated based on the number and quality of studies that confirmed or rejected the studied predictor as significant, into three levels of significance: predictors of high, moderate, and low clinical significance. Preoperative total motile sperm count (TMSC) coupled with sperm concentration can be a significant predictor of semen improvement and pregnancy after varicocelectomy. In addition, for semen improvement alone, scrotal Doppler ultrasound (DUS) parameters, sperm DNA fragmentation index (DFI), and bilateral varicocelectomy are reliable predictors of microsurgical varicocelectomy efficacy.

Keywords: male infertility; microsurgical varicocelectomy; predictor; pregnancy; semen; varicocele


Article in PDF

How to cite this URL:
Shomarufov AB, Bozhedomov VA, Sorokin NI, Matyukhov IP, Fozilov AA, Abbosov SA, Kamalov AA. Predictors of microsurgical varicocelectomy efficacy in male infertility treatment: critical assessment and systematization. Asian J Androl [Epub ahead of print] [cited 2022 May 21]. Available from: https://www.ajandrology.com/preprintarticle.asp?id=341327


  Introduction Top


Varicocele is a common correctable cause of male subfertility.[1],[2] Although the mechanisms of the influence of varicocele on male fertility are still being discussed, in general, the results of studies demonstrate that varicocele has a negative impact on spermatogenesis[3],[4] and that varicocele correction improves sperm quality and increases real fertility.[5],[6],[7] Based on recent data, the European Association of Urology (EAU), the American Urological Association (AUA), and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) recommend surgery for infertile men with clinical varicocele and abnormal semen parameters.[4],[8]

Ding et al.[9] and Çayan et al.[10] in their meta-analyses showed that microsurgical varicocelectomy (with the preservation of the lymphatic and arterial vessels) is the preferred surgical method in the treatment of clinical varicocele in infertile men in comparison with traditional open (without the use of microscopic equipment), laparoscopy, and endovascular vein occlusion. At the same time, varicocelectomy does not always lead to an improvement in sperm quality and fertility recovery: semen improvement after surgery usually occurs in 60%–70% of cases[11],[12] and natural pregnancies occur in 25%–40% of couples.[11],[13],[14]

To date, there have been many studies dedicated to the analysis of factors (predictors) affecting microsurgical varicocelectomy outcomes.[15],[16],[17] However, most of these studies are of a retrospective and prospective uncontrolled nature, and the results of most of them are conflicting, which do not allow unequivocal conclusions to be drawn.[18] In this review, we tried to collect and systematize all the evidence on the predictors of microsurgical varicocelectomy efficacy in male infertility treatment.


  Evidence Acquisition and Analysis Top


We found and analyzed publications during the period from 1980 to 2021 from PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, Embase, and Google Scholar that were dedicated to the study of factors (predictors) that influence varicocele repair (including sclerotherapy) efficacy in subfertile men. We used keywords such as “varicocele,” “varicocele repair”, “varicocelectomy”, “prediction”, “fertility”, “sperm”, “predictors of varicocelectomy”, and “prognosis of varicocelectomy” in the search. The search was limited to publications involving human subjects. Studies relating to outcomes other than semen parameters or reproductive outcomes were excluded from the review.

From this period, we identified 104 studies concerning predictors of varicocelectomy in male infertility treatment. Of these, six studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 58 were prospective studies (six of them were controlled), and 40 were retrospective designs. In 57 studies, varicocelectomy was performed by microsurgical techniques. Microsurgery with other techniques (embolization, laparoscopy, open inguinal nonmicroscopic technique, etc.) of varicocele repair was applied in six studies. Open ligating techniques (nonmicrosurgical retroperitoneal, high/low inguinal, and subinguinal techniques) were performed in 27 studies. Sclerotherapy (antegrade or retrograde) alone was applied in six studies, and laparoscopy was applied in three studies. Different types of surgical techniques were performed in 11 studies. We found no information on the varicocele repair technique used in two studies.

Fifty-seven studies during the period from 1993 to 2021, in which microsurgical varicocelectomy alone was the surgical method of varicocele repair, and four studies, in which microsurgery was the main treatment method for varicocele (and in which other techniques were used in less than 50% of patients), were included in the final analysis. In 34 studies, the authors considered only semen improvement as the outcome measure and dependent (predicted) variable of varicocele repair. Pregnancy alone and pregnancy with semen improvement were considered in 8 and 19 studies, respectively.

The efficacy of microsurgical varicocelectomy was evaluated 3–6 months after surgery by assessing changes in semen parameters and/or rates of natural pregnancies, as well as pregnancies after the use of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) protocols. Our analysis included such clinical parameters as varicocele grade, varicocelectomy side (bilateral or unilateral), testicular volume, body mass index (BMI), male and female (partner) age, infertility duration, sperm concentration, sperm motility, total motile sperm count (TMSC), sperm morphology, sperm DNA fragmentation index (DFI), and scrotal Doppler ultrasound (DUS) parameters (grade/duration of venous reflux, internal spermatic vein [ISV] and external spermatic veins [ESV] diameter, etc.), serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), and luteinizing hormone (LH) levels, and serum testosterone levels.

We did not include systematic reviews and meta-analyses in our analysis according to the heterogeneity of the included studies. Literature reviews were also not included due to the limited evidence.


  Gradation of Predictors by the Level of Clinical Significance Top


Our analysis and “gradation” were based on the amount and quality of the evidence approving or rejecting the given predictor as the significant predictor. We tried to consider the contribution (positive or negative) of each study to the evidence base of the predictor.

For an objective assessment of the clinical significance and the evidence level of the analyzed studies and the studied predictor, we decided to assign an appropriate score for each study based on the 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.[19] We assessed studies according to the design (RCTs; prospective: controlled and uncontrolled; and retrospective) and the power of the study (number of recruited patients), as shown in [Table 1].
Table 1: Types of evidence with appropriate scorea

Click here to view


The points scored assessed the clinical significance of each predictor. If the authors approved the factor's predictive role in varicocelectomy efficacy prediction, this work was assigned an appropriate score with a “+” sign; if they did not, with a “−” sign. For example, the final score of the predictor “sperm concentration” was 8: in four studies (2 prospective studies of 4 points, and 2 retrospective studies of 1 point), the prognostic significance of this predictor was confirmed, while in 2 retrospective studies, it was rejected [Table 2] and [Table 3]. We can perform a simple calculation and obtain a result (total points) as follows: (2 × 4 + 2 × 1) − 2 × 1 = 8 points.
Table 2: Predictors of semen improvement after microsurgical varicocelectomy

Click here to view
Table 3: Predictors of pregnancy after microsurgical varicocelectomy

Click here to view


The obtained results of the quantitative influence of the factor are presented in [Table 4] and [Table 5]. In accordance with the scores obtained, we divided the predictors into the following groups according to their level of evidence [Table 3]: I, predictors of high clinical significance (≥10 points); II, predictors of moderate clinical significance (5–9 points); and III, predictors of low clinical significance (<5 points).
Table 4: Classification of the studied predictors of semen improvement with their scores

Click here to view
Table 5: Classification of the studied predictors of pregnancy with their scores

Click here to view



  Comments to the Analysis and Limitations Top


According to the results of our analysis, the baseline semen parameters, i.e., sperm concentration and TMSC, can both be considered reliable predictors of microscopic varicocelectomy effectiveness. In addition, for semen improvement alone, scrotal DUS parameters (high grade and duration of venous reflux, spermatic vein diameter more than 2.5 mm), performance of bilateral varicocelectomy, and initially low sperm DFI can be significant predictors of microsurgical varicocelectomy success. For the rest of the parameters, there are still many unresolved issues. In addition, there are many debates on the preoperative (cutoff) values of these parameters. For example, some authors proposed an initial low TMSC (<5 × 106) as a significant predictor of postoperative semen improvement.[13],[20] Simultaneously, Cayan et al.[21] and Matkov et al.[22] suggested that an initial high TMSC (≥5 × 106) leads to significant semen improvement after varicocele repair. Concerning pregnancies after varicocelectomy, most authors agree that an initial high TMSC leads to a higher chance of conception.[23],[24] The same situation holds for sperm concentration. Different authors proposed different initial values of the sperm concentration (from 2 × 106 ml-1 to 20 × 106 ml−1) as a marker of varicocelectomy success.[25],[26],[27]

We studied several analytical reviews and meta-analyses dedicated to the study of factors affecting varicocelectomy efficacy in male subfertility treatment for comparative objectives. For example, the review by Samplaski and Jarvi[18] concluded that baseline semen parameters, varicocele grade, and male age are significant predictors of varicocelectomy efficacy. This is consistent with the findings of the meta-analysis by Wang et al.[28] where the authors showed that in men with a baseline TMSC of more than 20 × 106, the natural pregnancy rate was 55.4%, while in men with an initial TMSC of 1.5 × 106–5 × 106, the rate was only 26.8%. In addition, Shomarufov et al.[29] in their critical review concluded that the initial semen parameters, sperm DFI, and scrotal DUS parameters could be considered important prognostic factors of varicocele repair success. The above statements are consistent with our conclusions in terms of TMSC, sperm concentration, sperm DFI, and scrotal DUS parameters as significant predictors of semen improvement after microsurgical varicocele repair.

Until now, there have been debates on the superiority of bilateral varicocelectomy over unilateral repair (in the case of right-sided subclinical varicocele). Recent meta-analyses compared unilateral versus bilateral varicocelectomy.[30],[31] The authors agreed that performing bilateral varicocelectomy significantly improved sperm quality and the chances of conception in infertile couples.[30],[31] In our analysis, bilateral varicocelectomy was the most important factor for semen improvement after surgery.

Our analysis showed that varicocele grade has little impact on varicocelectomy success. This conflicts with the results of the systematic review by Asafu-Adjei et al.[32], where they analyzed the literature on the effect of the varicocele grade on varicocelectomy efficacy in subfertile men. The authors concluded that the varicocele grade had a direct impact on varicocelectomy success. However, given that the studies included in the review[32] were heterogeneous, the validity of this conclusion may be debatable.

This review has some critical limitations. For example, the results of three RCTs (where the patients underwent mostly non-microsurgical varicocele repair) showed the significance of the female partner's age as a significant predictor of pregnancy after varicocelectomy. However, according to our results this factor was assigned to the low clinical significance predictors' group.[33],[34] Of course, we should consider that the most recent of these RCTs was conducted in 2012.[34] In addition, according to a recent meta-analysis, the varicocele grade affects varicocelectomy efficacy; however, according to our results, this factor was considered not significant.[32] The above disadvantages may be related to the novel approach of the evidence analysis, which was based on an easy-to-use (with consideration of the study's design and power according to the CEBM[19] classification) assessment of the study's quality.


  Conclusions Top


Preoperative TMSC coupled with sperm concentration can be a significant predictor of semen improvement and pregnancy after varicocele repair. In addition, for semen improvement alone, scrotal DUS parameters, sperm DFI, and bilateral varicocelectomy can be reliable predictors of microsurgical varicocelectomy success. Other parameters had low evidence or clinical significance levels. Interestingly, although microsurgical varicocelectomy is the “gold standard” option for varicocele repair, there is still insufficient high- or moderate-quality evidence on predictors of this technique efficacy, especially in terms of real fertility recovery (pregnancy and live birth).


  Author Contributions Top


ABS and VAB worked up conception and design of the study. ABS, AAF, SAA, and IPM searched, assembled, and analyzed the literature data. NIS and AAK drafted and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.


  Competing Interests Top


All authors declared no competing interests.



 
  References Top

1.
Agarwal A, Baskaran S, Parekh N, Cho CL, Henkel R, et al. Male infertility. Lancet 2021; 397: 319–33.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Machen GL, Sandlow JI. Extended indications for varicocelectomy. F1000Research 2019; 8: 1579.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Bozhedomov VA, Shomarufov AB, Bozhedomova GE, Okhobotov AD, Kamalov DM, et al. [Varicocele and reproductive function: epidemiology and infertility risk (the examination of 3632 patients)]. Urologiia 2021; 3: 122–8. [Article in Russian].  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Jarow JP, Sharlip ID, Belker AM, Lipshultz LI, Sigman M, et al. Best practice policies for male infertility. J Urol 2002; 167: 2138–44.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Baazeem A, Belzile E, Ciampi A, Dohle G, Jarvi K, et al. Varicocele and male factor infertility treatment: a new meta-analysis and review of the role of varicocele repair. Eur Urol 2011; 60: 796–808.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Kroese AC, de Lange NM, Collins J, Evers JL. Surgery or embolization for varicoceles in subfertile men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 10: CD000479.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Miyaoka R, Esteves SC. Surgical treatment for male infertility. In: Parekattil SJ, Agarwal A, editors. Male Infertility: Contemporary Clinical Approaches, Andrology, ART and Antioxidants. New York: Springer; 2020. p165–86.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Salonia A, Bettocchi C, Carvalho J, Corona G, Jones T, et al. EAU Guidelines on Sexual and Reproductive Health. Amsterdam: EAU Guidelines Office; 2020.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Ding H, Tian J, Du W, Zhang L, Wang H, et al. Open non-microsurgical, laparoscopic or open microsurgical varicocelectomy for male infertility: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BJU Int 2012; 110: 1536–42.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Çayan S, Shavakhabov S, Kadioğlu A. Treatment of palpable varicocele review in infertile men: a meta-analysis to define the best technique. J Androl 2009; 30: 33–40.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Abdel-Meguid TA, Al-Sayyad A, Tayib A, Farsi HM. Does varicocele repair improve male infertility? An evidence-based perspective from a randomized, controlled trial. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 455–61.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Bozhedomov VA, Shomarufov AB, Bozhedomova GE, Ohobotov AD, Kamalov DM, et al. [Varicocele and reproductive function: pathozoospermia treatment (a prospective comparative study)]. Urologiia 2021; 5: 62–8. [Article in Russian].  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Masterson TA, Greer AB, Ramasamy R. Time to improvement in semen parameters after microsurgical varicocelectomy in men with severe oligospermia. Can Urol Assoc J 2019; 13: E66–9.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Pazir Y, Erdem S, Cilesiz NC, Kadioglu A. Determination of the time for improvement in semen parameters after varicocelectomy. Andrologia 2021; 53: 1–7.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Palmisano F, Moreno-Mendoza D, Ievoli R, Veber-Moisés-Da Silva G, Gasanz-Serrano C, et al. Clinical factors affecting semen improvement after microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy: which subfertile patients benefit from surgery? Ther Adv Urol 2019; 11: 1756287219887656.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Erdogan O, Ok F, Carkci S. What is the role of pre-operative blood parameters in forecasting varicocelectomy success? Andrology 2021; 9: 916–21.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Ok F, Erdogan O, Durmus E. Can preoperative gonadotropin and testosterone levels predict the success of varicocelectomy? Andrologia 2020; 52: e13887.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Samplaski MK, Jarvi KA. Prognostic factors for a favorable outcome after varicocele repair in adolescents and adults. Asian J Androl 2016; 18: 217–21.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou P, Greenhalgh T, Heneghan C, et al. The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Oxford: Oxford Centre Evidence-Based Medicine Group; 2011.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Samplaski MK, Lo KC, Grober ED, Zini A, Jarvi KA. Varicocelectomy to “upgrade” semen quality to allow couples to use less invasive forms of assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 2017; 108: 609–12.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Cayan S, Erdemir F, Ozbey I, Turek PJ, Kadioğlu A, et al. Can varicocelectomy significantly change the way couples use assisted reproductive technologies? J Urol 2002; 167: 1749–52.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Matkov TG, Zenni M, Sandlow J, Levine LA. Preoperative semen analysis as a predictor of seminal improvement following varicocelectomy. Fertil Steril 2001; 75: 63–8.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Shomarufov AB, Bozhedomov VA, Akilov FA, Mukhtarov ST, Giyasov SI, et al. Prediction of reproductive function recovery after microsurgical varicocelectomy in men from infertile couples: clinical and laboratory predictors. Andrologia 2021; 53: e14101.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Zhang JW, Xu QQ, Kuang YL, Wang Y, Xu F, et al. Predictors for spontaneous pregnancy after microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy: a prospective cohort study. Int Urol Nephrol 2017; 49: 955–60.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Shabana W, Teleb M, Dawod T, Desoky E, Shahin A, et al. Predictors of improvement in semen parameters after varicocelectomy for male subfertility: a prospective study. Can Urol Assoc J 2015; 9: E579–82.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Enatsu N, Yamaguchi K, Chiba K, Miyake H, Fujisawa M. Clinical outcome of microsurgical varicocelectomy in infertile men with severe oligozoospermia. Urology 2014; 83: 1071–4.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Peng J, Zhang Z, Cui W, Yuan Y, Song W, et al. Spontaneous pregnancy rates in Chinese men undergoing microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy and possible preoperative factors affecting the outcomes. Fertil Steril 2015; 103: 635–9.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Wang Q, Yu Y, Liu Y, Wang L. Outcome of varicocelectomy on different degrees of total motile sperm count: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Biol Reprod Med 2019; 65: 430–6.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Shomarufov AB, Bozhedomov VA, Giyasov SI, Abbosov SA, Kamalov AA. [Varicocelectomy: a critical analysis of predictors for male reproductive function recovery]. Urologiia 2020; 12: 148–54. [Article in Russian].  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Niu Y, Wang D, Chen Y, Pokhrel G, Xu H, et al. Comparison of clinical outcome of bilateral and unilateral varicocelectomy in infertile males with left clinical and right subclinical varicocele: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Andrologia 2018; 50: e13078.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Ou N, Zhu J, Zhang W, Liang Z, Hu R, et al. Bilateral is superior to unilateral varicocelectomy in infertile men with bilateral varicocele: systematic review and meta-analysis. Andrologia 2019; 51: e13462.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Asafu-Adjei D, Judge C, Deibert CM, Li G, Stember D, et al. Systematic review of the impact of varicocele grade on response to surgical management. J Urol 2020; 203: 48–56.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Nieschlag E, Hertle L, Fischedick A, Abshagen K, Behre HM. Update on treatment of varicocele: counselling as effective as occlusion of the vena spermatica. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 2147–50.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Mansour Ghanaie M, Alaeddin Asgari S, Dadrass N, Allahkhah A, Iran-Pour E, et al. Effects of varicocele repair on spontaneous first trimester miscarriage: a randomized clinical trial. Urol J 2012; 9: 505–13.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Machen GL, Johnson D, Nissen MA, Naber E, Sandlow JI. Time to improvement of semen parameters after microscopic varicocelectomy: when it occurs and its effects on fertility. Andrologia 2020; 52: e13500.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Bolat MS, Kocamanoglu F, Gulsen M, Sengul M, Asci R. The impact of age on fertility rate in patients who underwent microsurgical varicocelectomy. Andrologia 2019; 51: e13234.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Kimura M, Nagao K, Tai T, Kobayashi H, Nakajima K. Age is a significant predictor of early and late improvement in semen parameters after microsurgical varicocele repair. Andrologia 2017; 49: e12620.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Wang H, Wang X, Fu D, Zhu H, Lai MK. Does varicocele grade predict the postoperative changes of semen parameters following left inguinal micro-varicocelectomy? Asian J Urol 2015; 2: 163–6.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Kadioglu TC, Aliyev E, Celtik M. Microscopic varicocelectomy significantly decreases the sperm DNA fragmentation index in patients with infertility. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014: 695713.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Samplaski MK, Yu C, Kattan MW, Lo KC, Grober ED, et al. Nomograms for predicting changes in semen parameters in infertile men after varicocele repair. Fertil Steril 2014; 102: 68–74.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Baker K, McGill J, Sharma R, Agarwal A, Sabanegh E. Pregnancy after varicocelectomy: impact of postoperative motility and DFI. Urology 2013; 81: 760–6.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Bozhedomov VA, Lipatova NA, Alexeev RA, Alexandrova LM, Nikolaeva MA, et al. The role of the antisperm antibodies in male infertility assessment after microsurgical varicocelectomy. Andrology 2014; 2: 847–55.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Chen SS, Chen LK. Predictive factors of successful varicocelectomy in infertile patients. Urol Int 2011; 86: 320–4.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Azab S, Abdelbary A, Raafat M. Are there any predictive values that affect semen parameters' outcome after a microsurgical left subinginal varicocelectomy? Hum Androl 2012; 2: 105–8.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Kondo Y, Ishikawa T, Yamaguchi K, Fujisawa M. Predictors of improved seminal characteristics by varicocele repair. Andrologia 2009; 41: 20–3.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Choi WS, Kim TB, Paick JS, Kim SW. [Factors related to improvement or normalization of semen parameters after microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy]. Korean J Urol 2009; 50: 39–45. [Article in Korean].  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Shindel AW, Yan Y, Naughton CK. Does the number and size of veins ligated at left-sided microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy affect semen analysis outcomes? Urology 2007; 69: 1176–80.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Fujisawa M, Dobashi M, Yamasaki T, Okada H, Arakawa S, et al. Therapeutic strategy after microsurgical varicocelectomy in the modern assisted reproductive technology era. Urol Res 2002; 30: 195–8.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Ishikawa T, Fujisawa M. Effect of age and grade on surgery for patients with varicocele. Urology 2005; 65: 768–72.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Steckel J, Dicker AP, Goldstein M. Relationship between varicocele size and response to varicocelectomy. J Urol 1993; 149: 769–71.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Öğreden E, Oğuz U, Çirakoğlu A, Demirelli E, Benli E, et al. Comparison of response to treatment of unilateral and bilateral varicocelectomy. Turkish J Med Sci 2017; 47: 167–71.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Sun XL, Wang JL, Peng YP, Gao QQ, Song T, et al. Bilateral is superior to unilateral varicocelectomy in infertile males with left clinical and right subclinical varicocele: a prospective randomized controlled study. Int Urol Nephrol 2018; 50: 205–10.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Çayan S, Şahin S, Akbay E. Paternity rates and time to conception in adolescents with varicocele undergoing microsurgical varicocele repair vs observation only: a single institution experience with 408 patients. J Urol 2017; 198: 195–201.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Elbendary MA, Elbadry AM. Right subclinical varicocele: how to manage in infertile patients with clinical left varicocele? Fertil Steril 2009; 92: 2050–3.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Baazeem A, Boman JM, Libman J, Jarvi K, Zini A. Microsurgical varicocelectomy for infertile men with oligospermia: differential effect of bilateral and unilateral varicocele on pregnancy outcomes. BJU Int 2009; 104: 524–8.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Libman J, Jarvi K, Lo K, Zini A. Beneficial effect of microsurgical varicocelectomy is superior for men with bilateral versus unilateral repair. J Urol 2006; 176: 2602–5.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Pasqualotto FF, Lucon AM, De Góes PM, Sobreiro BP, Hallak J, et al. Relationship between the number of veins ligated in a varicocelectomy with testicular volume, hormonal levels and semen parameters outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet 2005; 22: 245–9.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
Fujisawa M, Ishikawa T, Takenaka A. The efficacy of bilateral varicocelectomy in patients with palpable bilateral varicoceles: comparative study with unilateral varicocele. Urol Res 2003; 31: 407–9.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Scherr D, Goldstein M. Comparison of bilateral versus unilateral varicocelectomy in men with palpable bilateral varicoceles. J Urol 1999; 162: 85–8.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Madhusoodanan V, Blachman-Braun R, Patel P, Ji L, Masterson TA, et al. Preoperative follicle-stimulating hormone: a factor associated with semen parameter improvement after microscopic subinguinal varicocelectomy. Can Urol Assoc J 2020; 14: E27–31.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
Lee YJ, Cho SY, Paick JS, Kim SW. Usefulness of 2010 World Health Organization reference values for determining indications for varicocelectomy. Urology 2015; 85: 831–35.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Yazdani M, Hadi M, Abbasi H, Nourimahdavi K, Khalighinejad P, et al. Efficacy of varicocele repair in different age groups. Urology 2015; 86: 273–5.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
Shiraishi K, Naito K, Takihara H. Indication of varicocelectomy in the era of assisted reproductive technology: prediction of treatment outcome by noninvasive diagnostic methods. Arch Androl 2003; 49: 475–8.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.
Hsiao W, Rosoff JS, Pale JR, Greenwood EA, Goldstein M. Older age is associated with similar improvements in semen parameters and testosterone after subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy. J Urol 2011; 185: 620–5.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.
Reşorlu B, Kara C, Şahin E, Ünsal A. The significance of age on success of surgery for patients with varicocele. Int Urol Nephrol 2010; 42: 351–6.  Back to cited text no. 65
    
66.
Zorba UO, Sanli OM, Tezer M, Erdemir F, Shavakhabov S, et al. Effect of infertility duration on postvaricocelectomy sperm counts and pregnancy rates. Urology 2009; 73: 767–71.  Back to cited text no. 66
    
67.
Chen SS. Predictive factors of successful redo varicocelectomy in infertile patients with recurrent varicocele. Andrologia 2014; 46: 738–43.  Back to cited text no. 67
    
68.
Ates E, Ucar M, Keskin MZ, Gokce A. Preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a new prognostic predictor after microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy. Andrologia 2019; 51: e13188.  Back to cited text no. 68
    
69.
Abdelbaki SA, Sabry JH, Al-Adl AM, Sabry HH. The impact of coexisting sperm DNA fragmentation and seminal oxidative stress on the outcome of varicocelectomy in infertile patients: a prospective controlled study. Arab J Urol 2017; 15: 131–9.  Back to cited text no. 69
    
70.
Ni K, Steger K, Yang H, Wang H, Hue K, et al. A comprehensive investigation of sperm DNA damage and oxidative stress injury in infertile patients with subclinical, normozoospermic, and astheno/oligozoospermic clinical varicocoele. Andrology 2016; 4: 816–24.  Back to cited text no. 70
    
71.
Hafez H. Seminal improvement following microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy: preoperative sonographic parameters of success. UroToday Int J 2009; 2: 1–6.  Back to cited text no. 71
    
72.
Hussein AF. The role of color Doppler ultrasound in prediction of the outcome of microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy. J Urol 2006; 176: 2141–5.  Back to cited text no. 72
    
73.
Schiff JD, Li PS, Goldstein M. Correlation of ultrasound-measured venous size and reversal of flow with Valsalva with improvement in semen-analysis parameters after varicocelectomy. Fertil Steril 2006; 86: 250–2.  Back to cited text no. 73
    
74.
Goren MR, Erbay G, Ozer C, Kayra MV, Hasirci E. Can we predict the outcome of varicocelectomy based on the duration of venous reflux? Urology 2016; 88: 81–6.  Back to cited text no. 74
    
75.
Akand M, Koplay M, Islamoglu N, Altintas E, Kilic O, et al. Color Doppler ultrasound characteristics after subinguinal microscopic varicocelectomy. Med Ultrason 2017; 19: 59–65.  Back to cited text no. 75
    
76.
Ortapamuk H, Yener Tekdogan U, Naldoken S, Bulut S, Atan A. Hemodynamic evaluation of varicocele: the role of scrotal scintigraphy and Doppler ultrasonography in the prediction of postoperative seminal improvement. Ann Nucl Med 2005; 19: 529–34.  Back to cited text no. 76
    
77.
Harnisch BA, Johnson D, Zganjar A, Sandlow JI. Predictors of success after microscopic subinguinal varicocelectomy. Fertil Steril 2014; 102: e348.  Back to cited text no. 77
    
78.
Leung L, Ho KL, Tam PC, Yiu MK. Subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy for male factor subfertility: ten-year experience. Hong Kong Med J 2013; 19: 334–40.  Back to cited text no. 78
    
79.
Zini A, Boman J, Jarvi K, Baazeem A. Varicocelectomy for infertile couples with advanced paternal age. Urology 2008; 72: 109–13.  Back to cited text no. 79
    
80.
Almekaty K, Zahran MH, Zoeir A, Minhas S, Salem K. The role of artery-preserving varicocelectomy in subfertile men with severe oligozoospermia: a randomized controlled study. Andrology 2019; 7: 193–8.  Back to cited text no. 80
    
81.
O'Brien JH, Bowles B, Kamal KM, Jarvi K, Zini A. Microsurgical varicocelectomy for infertile couples with advanced female age: natural history in the era of ART. J Androl 2004; 25: 939–43.  Back to cited text no. 81
    
82.
Kamal KM, Jarvi K, Zini A. Microsurgical varicocelectomy in the era of assisted reproductive technology: influence of initial semen quality on pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril 2001; 75: 1013–6.  Back to cited text no. 82
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]



 

 
Top
 
 
  Search
 
 Search Pubmed for
 
    -  Shomarufov AB
    -  Bozhedomov VA
    -  Sorokin NI
    -  Matyukhov IP
    -  Fozilov AA
    -  Abbosov SA
    -  Kamalov AA
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Evidence Acquisi...
Gradation of Pre...
Comments to the ...
Conclusions
Author Contributions
Competing Interests
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed461    
    PDF Downloaded27    

Recommend this journal