Microscopic Retroperitoneal Varicocelectomy With Artery and Lymphatic Sparing: An Alternative Treatment for Varicocele in Infertile Men

Does Varicocele Repair Improve Conventional Semen Parameters? A Meta-Analytic Study of Before-After Data

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).

RESULTS

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.

Varicocele: To Treat or Not to Treat?

Varicocele treatment in infertility still remains controversial. It is clear, in fact, that in many patients, varicocele has no impact on fertility. Recent scientific evidence demonstrated that varicocele treatment is beneficial in improving semen parameters and pregnancy rate when an appropriate selection of patients is made. The purpose of treating varicocele in adults is mainly to improve current fertility status. On the other hand, the goal of treatment in adolescents is to prevent testicular injury and maintain testicular function for future fertility. Hence, the key to the success of varicocele treatment seems to be a correct indication. The aim of this study is to review and summarize current evidence in managing varicocele treatment focusing on the controversies regarding surgical indications in adolescent and adult patients, and in other specific situations such as azoospermia, bilateral or subclinical varicocele, and prior to ART.

Surgical or radiological treatment for varicoceles in subfertile men

BACKGROUND

Varicoceles are associated with male subfertility; however, the mechanisms by which varicoceles affect fertility have yet to be satisfactorily explained. Several treatment options exist, including surgical or radiological treatment, however the safest and most efficient treatment remains unclear.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of surgical and radiological treatment of varicoceles on live birth rate, adverse events, pregnancy rate, varicocele recurrence, and quality of life amongst couples where the adult male has a varicocele, and the female partner of childbearing age has no fertility problems.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases on 4 April 2020: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also searched the trial registries and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) if they were relevant to the clinical question posed and compared different forms of surgical ligation, different forms of radiological treatments, surgical treatment compared to radiological treatment, or one of these aforementioned treatment forms compared to non-surgical methods, delayed treatment, or no treatment. We extracted data if the studies reported on live birth, adverse events, pregnancy, varicocele recurrence, and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of abstracts and full-text publications, alongside data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment, were done dually using the Covidence software. When we had sufficient data, we calculated random-effects (Mantel-Haenszel) meta-analyses; otherwise, we reported results narratively. We used the I² statistic to analyse statistical heterogeneity. We planned to use funnel plots to assess publication bias in meta-analyses with at least 10 included studies. We dually rated the risk of bias of studies using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 1897 citations after de-duplicating the search results. We excluded 1773 during title and abstract screening. From the 113 new full texts assessed in addition to the 10 studies (11 references) included in the previous version of this review, we included 38 new studies, resulting in a total of 48 studies (59 references) in the review providing data for 5384 participants. Two studies (three references) are ongoing studies and two studies are awaiting classification. Treatment versus non-surgical, non-radiological, delayed, or no treatment Two studies comparing surgical or radiological treatment versus no treatment reported on live birth with differing directions of effect. As a result, we are uncertain whether surgical or radiological treatment improves live birth rates when compared to no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 26.93; 2 RCTs, N = 204; I² = 74%, very low-certainty evidence). Treatment may improve pregnancy rates compared to delayed or no treatment (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.26; 13 RCTs, N = 1193; I² = 65%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that couples with no or delayed treatment have a 21% chance of pregnancy, whilst the pregnancy rate after surgical or radiological treatment is between 22% and 48%. We identified no evidence on adverse events, varicocele recurrence, or quality of life for this comparison. Surgical versus radiological treatment We are uncertain about the effect of surgical versus radiological treatment on live birth and on the following adverse events: hydrocele formation, pain, epididymitis, haematoma, and suture granuloma. We are uncertain about the effect of surgical versus radiological treatment on pregnancy rate (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.70; 5 RCTs, N = 456, low-certainty evidence) and varicocele recurrence (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.08; 3 RCTs, N = 380, low-certainty evidence). We identified no evidence on quality of life for this comparison. Surgery versus other surgical treatment We identified 19 studies comparing microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment to any other surgical treatment. Microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment probably improves pregnancy rates slightly compared to other surgical treatments (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.36; 12 RCTs, N = 1473, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that couples with microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment have a 10% to 14% chance of pregnancy after treatment, whilst the pregnancy rate in couples after other surgical treatments is 10%. This procedure also probably reduces the risk of varicocele recurrence (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29, 0.79; 14 RCTs, N = 1565, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that 0.4% to 1.1% of men undergoing microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment experience recurrent varicocele, whilst 1.4% of men undergoing other surgical treatments do. Results for the following adverse events were inconclusive: hydrocele formation, haematoma, abdominal distension, testicular atrophy, wound infection, scrotal pain, and oedema. We identified no evidence on live birth or quality of life for this comparison. Nine studies compared open inguinal surgical treatment to retroperitoneal surgical treatment. Due to small sample sizes and methodological limitations, we identified neither treatment type as superior or inferior to the other regarding adverse events, pregnancy rates, or varicocele recurrence. We identified no evidence on live birth or quality of life for this comparison. Radiological versus other radiological treatment One study compared two types of radiological treatment (sclerotherapy versus embolisation) and reported 13% varicocele recurrence in both groups. Due to the broad confidence interval, no valid conclusion could be drawn (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.16 to 6.20; 1 RCT, N = 30, very low-certainty evidence). We identified no evidence on live birth, adverse events, pregnancy, or quality of life for this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the limited evidence, it remains uncertain whether any treatment (surgical or radiological) compared to no treatment in subfertile men may be of benefit on live birth rates; however, treatment may improve the chances for pregnancy. The evidence was also insufficient to determine whether surgical treatment was superior to radiological treatment. However, microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment probably improves pregnancy rates and reduces the risk of varicocele recurrence compared to other surgical treatments. High-quality, head-to-head comparative RCTs focusing on live birth rate and also assessing adverse events and quality of life are warranted.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic artery-sparing varicocelectomy using indocyanine green fluorescence angiography: Initial experience

We reported our initial experience of robotic-assisted laparoscopic artery-sparing varicocelectomy using indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence angiography in treatment of varicocele. A total of 45 varicocelectomies in 27 patients were performed. The mean operation time was 49.1 ± 8.5 min for unilateral and 65.6 ± 8.3 min for bilateral repair. 47.2 s after ICG injection, testicular artery (TA) was visualised. After an interval of 31.3 s, fluorescent veins were identified. Of all the 45 spermatic cords, 68.9% had a solitary artery, while 31.1% had 2 arteries. The mean hospital stay was 1.6 ± 0.9 days. Semen concentration and motility were significantly improved 6 months after surgery, no recurrence, hydrocele or testicular atrophy was observed. Our study demonstrated that robotic-assisted laparoscopic artery-sparing varicocelectomy using ICG fluorescence angiography is a safe, effective and promising technique in treatment of varicocele.

The Varicocele: Clinical Presentation, Evaluation, and Surgical Management

A varicocele is an abnormal dilatation and tortuosity of the veins of the spermatic cord. Although varicoceles are common in the general population and are frequently found on routine physical examinations, they represent the most common correctable cause of male factor infertility. Varicoceles are also often incidental findings on imaging studies, particularly scrotal ultrasound. Importantly, not all varicoceles should be treated equally (or at all), and basic guidelines on the evaluation and indications for treatment of adult varicoceles should be reviewed before counseling and treatment. A semen analysis should be obtained for any male patient of reproductive age considering intervention. The adolescent varicocele is managed much differently than the adult varicocele and remains a source of controversy. This review describes the clinical presentation and the evaluation of adult and pediatric varicoceles, and provides guidance on their diagnosis and workup. It also describes options for surgical repair and the success and complication rates associated with each surgical approach, ultimately supporting microsurgical subinguinal varicocele repair as the current surgical standard.