Table of Contents  
INVITED COMMENTARY
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 18  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 317-318

Controversies in varicocele repair - much ado about nothing?


Department of Urology, Loma Linda University School of Medicine, Loma Linda, California, USA

Date of Web Publication29-Dec-2015

Correspondence Address:
Edmund Yuey Kun Ko
Department of Urology, Loma Linda University School of Medicine, Loma Linda, California
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1008-682X.168789

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Shen JK, Huang GO, Ko EY. Controversies in varicocele repair - much ado about nothing?. Asian J Androl 2016;18:317-8

How to cite this URL:
Shen JK, Huang GO, Ko EY. Controversies in varicocele repair - much ado about nothing?. Asian J Androl [serial online] 2016 [cited 2017 Apr 30];18:317-8. Available from: http://www.ajandrology.com/text.asp?2016/18/2/317/168789 - DOI: 10.4103/1008-682X.168789

Varicoceles have long been implicated in the pathogenesis of male factor infertility and recently, hypogonadism. Despite this, over the past half-century there has been widespread debate and disagreement among clinicians regarding the benefit of varicocele repair. In this commentary, we discuss recent data that has begun supporting the role of varicocele repair in treating male infertility and hypogonadism.

In 2003, Evers and Collins published a seminal meta-analysis addressing the topic of varicocele repair for male factor infertility. [1] They concluded that "varicocele repair does not seem to be an effective treatment for male or unexplained subfertility." However, the authors noted concerns with the overall quality of the studies examined in the meta-analysis, including the lack of control groups and appropriate blinding, and high attrition rates during the follow-up period. Patients with subclinical or nonpalpable varicoceles and normal preoperative semen parameters were included in the meta-analysis, possibly masking the beneficial effect of repair of clinically apparent varicoceles in men with abnormal semen parameters. Analysis restricted to trials involving subfertile men with clinically apparent varicoceles showed there was a higher relative benefit to varicocele repair, but this was not statistically significant, possibly due to insufficient power. [1] Of note, neither the European Association of Urology nor American Society of Reproductive Medicine guidelines recommend repair of subclinical varicoceles. [2],[3]

As the treatment of varicoceles evolves, so does the need for high-quality evidence regarding its proper role in the treatment of male factor infertility. Most studies, including those examined in the early versions of the Evers and Collins meta-analysis, involved the use of nonmicrosurgical techniques of varicocele repair. However, microsurgical techniques have become increasingly popular and may be superior with regard to postoperative improvement in semen analysis parameters, complication rates, and recurrence rates. [4] One of the few randomized controlled trials to compare microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy to a control group with pregnancy rate as a primary outcome demonstrated a higher pregnancy rate within a follow-up period of 1 year as well as improved semen parameters in the treatment group. [5]

The 2012 update of Evers and Collins' meta-analysis, including this trial, calculated an odds ratio of 1.47 in favor of varicocele repair in terms of natural pregnancy rate. [6] The authors were reluctant to conclude that varicocele repair was beneficial for infertility treatment, again citing concerns due to the methodologies of the studies examined. [6] A nonrelated 2007 meta-analysis reported natural pregnancy odds ratio of 2.87 in favor of surgical varicocelectomy. The number needed to treat was 5.7. [7]

Previous studies using natural pregnancy rate as the outcome measure may have overlooked men with nonobstructive azoospermia and couples requiring assisted reproductive techniques (ARTs) as potential beneficiaries of varicocele repair. Esteves and Glina demonstrated the presence of sperm in the ejaculate of 8 out of 17 formerly azoospermic men after subinguinal microsurgical varicocele repair. [8] Men who remain azoospermic after varicocele repair may have a higher rate of successful sperm retrieval during subsequent testicular microdissection sperm extraction. [9] In a comparison of 80 men with clinically palpable varicoceles who underwent subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy versus 162 untreated men, the former group demonstrated higher pregnancy and live birth rates with lower miscarriage rates with the subsequent use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection. [10] This evidence demonstrates a possible role for varicocelectomy to "downgrade" the type of ART required by an infertile couple or increase its success rate in a cost-effective manner.

The role of varicocele repair may not necessarily be limited to the treatment of male factor infertility, as there is emerging evidence that varicocele repair can be of benefit in hypogonadal men. A series of 272 men with clinically palpable varicoceles undergoing subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy demonstrated a statistically significant increase in serum testosterone level for the subset of men with preoperative baseline testosterone ≤400 ng dl−1 . [11] One prospective study demonstrated an improvement in serum testosterone level for patients with preoperative baseline serum testosterone <300 ng dl−1 who underwent microsurgical varicocelectomy. In this study, the group undergoing microsurgical varicocelectomy also experienced improved erectile function as measured by International Index of Erectile Function-5 questionnaire. [12]

There remains the need for well-conducted prospective randomized controlled trials in order to provide higher-level evidence to support varicocele repair for the above-mentioned indications. The ideal trial would involve patients with palpable varicoceles and abnormal conventional semen parameters by World Health Organization criteria, well-documented pre- and post-treatment semen analyses, and pre- and post-treatment serum hormone profiles. There should be a robust mechanism for patient randomization into treatment and observation arms. Follow-up should occur for an appropriate timeframe with minimal patient attrition. Accruing patients for such studies may be difficult because of the fact that patients may not be willing to be randomized to an observation arm because of the potential delay in treatment. Assisted reproductive technologies as well as crossover to the treatment arm may aid in convincing patients to enroll.

Contemporary studies with improved methodology and incorporating microsurgical techniques of varicocele repair have been increasingly optimistic regarding the benefits of varicocele repair in treating male factor infertility and hypogonadism. As prospective studies with improved methodology continue to be published and the body of literature accumulates, it is our opinion that varicocele repair will no longer remain "much ado about nothing."


  Competing Interests Top


All authors declare no competing interests.

 
  References Top

1.
Evers JL, Collins JA. Assessment of efficacy of varicocele repair for male subfertility: a systematic review. Lancet 2003; 361: 1849-52.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Jungwirth A, Giwercman A, Tournaye H, Diemer T, Kopa Z, et al. European Association of Urology guidelines on Male Infertility: the 2012 update. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 324-32.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Society for Male Reproduction and Urology. Report on varicocele and infertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2014; 102: 1556-60.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Al-Said S, Al-Naimi A, Al-Ansari A, Younis N, Shamsodini A, et al. Varicocelectomy for male infertility: a comparative study of open, laparoscopic and microsurgical approaches. J Urol 2008; 180: 266-70.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
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. 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.
Marmar JL, Agarwal A, Prabakaran S, Agarwal R, Short RA, et al. Reassessing the value of varicocelectomy as a treatment for male subfertility with a new meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2007; 88: 639-48.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Esteves SC, Glina S. Recovery of spermatogenesis after microsurgical subinguinal varicocele repair in azoospermic men based on testicular histology. Int Braz J Urol 2005; 31: 541-8.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Inci K, Hascicek M, Kara O, Dikmen AV, Gurgan T, et al. Sperm retrieval and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in men with nonobstructive azoospermia, and treated and untreated varicocele. J Urol 2009; 182: 1500-5.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Esteves SC, Oliveira FV, Bertolla RP. Clinical outcome of intracytoplasmic sperm injection in infertile men with treated and untreated clinical varicocele. J Urol 2010; 184: 1442-6.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
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. 11
    
12.
Zohdy W, Ghazi S, Arafa M. Impact of varicocelectomy on gonadal and erectile functions in men with hypogonadism and infertility. J Sex Med 2011; 8: 885-93.  Back to cited text no. 12
    



This article has been cited by
1 Varicocele and male infertility: current concepts and future perspectives
Ashok Agarwal,SandroC Esteves
Asian Journal of Andrology. 2016; 18(2): 161
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Afterword to varicocele and male infertility: current concepts and future perspectives
SandroC Esteves,Ashok Agarwal
Asian Journal of Andrology. 2016; 18(2): 319
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Competing Interests
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed543    
    Printed80    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded187    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]