Despite being first described two thousand years ago, the varicocele remains a controversial multifaceted disease process with numerous biological consequences including infertility, hypogonadism, and chronic orchidalgia. The underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood and likely include hypoxia, oxidative stress, hyperthermia, anatomical aberrations, and genetics as primary components. Despite a high prevalence amongst asymptomatic fertile men, varicoceles paradoxically also represent the most common correctable cause for male infertility. In this systematic review we discuss the rich historical aspects of the varicocele and the contemporary data regarding its clinical manifestations. We performed a systematic literature review with the goal of comparing outcomes and complication rates of each of the major surgical approaches as they relate to infertility and pain. We performed a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA)-compliant systematic literature review for manuscripts focused on varicocele and its biological consequences. We identified 112 studies suitable for qualitative analysis and included 56 of these for quantitative analysis, with an emphasis on infertility and chronic pain outcomes. Taken together, the clinical work to date suggests that the highest fertility rates and the lowest complication rates are associated with the microsurgical subinguinal surgical approach to varicocelectomy. In all, 26-40% of patients undergoing varicocelectomy will successfully achieve short-term spontaneous pregnancy, and up to 90% of all patients undergoing varicocelectomy for pain will have improvement and/or resolution of their symptoms. Taken together, the data support an ongoing role for varicocelectomy in both of these clinical arenas.
PMID 29713547 29713547 DOI 10.1016/j.aju.2017.11.003 10.1016/j.aju.2017.11.003 Lundy et al. 2018, Lundy 2018
Cite this article
Lundy, S. D., & Sabanegh, E. S., Jr. (2018). Varicocele management for infertility and pain: A systematic review.. Arab journal of urology, 16(1), 157-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2017.11.003
Lundy SD, Sabanegh ES Jr. Varicocele management for infertility and pain: A systematic review.. Arab journal of urology. 2018;16(1):157-170. doi:10.1016/j.aju.2017.11.003
Varicocele recurrence is one of the most common complications associated with varicocele repair. A systematic review was performed to evaluate varicocele recurrence rates, anatomic causes of recurrence, and methods of management of recurrent varicoceles. The PubMed database was evaluated using keywords "recurrent" and "varicocele" as well as MESH criteria "recurrent" and "varicocele." Articles were not included that were not in English, represented single case reports, focused solely on subclinical varicocele, or focused solely on a pediatric population (age <18). Rates of recurrence vary with the technique of varicocele repair from 0% to 35%. Anatomy of recurrence can be defined by venography. Management of varicocele recurrence can be surgical or via embolization.
"Uterine Isolation" has been discussed, in one form or another, since the early 1940's by such notable American theologians as Fr. John C. Ford, SJ, Fr. Gerald Kelly, SJ; Fr. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R.; Fr. L. Bender; Fr. John R. Connery; SJ, Fr. Edwin F. Healy, SJ; and Fr. Thomas J. O'Donnell, SJ.l The term "uterine isolation" originated with Fr. O'Donnell. O'Donnell, who is personally convinced of the validity of the arguments for the solid probability of the "uterine isolation" view, was also responsible for having this deleted from the "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Facilities" which were published and approved by the bishops in 1971." 'Isolation of the uterus' or 'uterine isolation' " he says, "had taken root in the medical-moral community and, either through misunderstanding or deception, was being used as a presumably morally acceptable semantic for various forms of clearly contraceptive sterilization."l O'Donnell states that the following three points need to be understood by Catholic hospital administration and staff with regard to the term "uterine isolation procedure":
1. Hysterectomy in the presence of a uterus which has been so damaged or weakened by multiple cesarean sections that it is judged to be incapable (because of the damage within the uterus itself) of safely supporting another pregnancy is, with solid probability, not a contraceptive sterilization and is permitted . . . 2. In this case, and only in this case, the isolation of such a uterus at its tubal adnexa, instead of its extirpation, if clinically indicated, is, with solid probability, not a contraceptive sterilization and thus may be permitted and practiced; unless, of course, this is disapproVed by the bishop of the diocese who might well foresee greater harm in the danger of misunderstanding and morally unwarranted extension of the procedure as a semantic to conceal directly contraceptive sterilizations. 3. If, after further study and investigation, there would be a sufficient consensus of theological opinion or a decision by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that either of the procedures described above (either the hysterectomy in this case or the isolation procedure) is indeed a direct sterilization (such as to discount the solid probability that it is not), then neither of the procedures could be done within the context of Catholic teaching. The sale moral defense of either procedure is the solid probability of the moral opinion that it is not a directly contraceptive sterilization (emphasis applied). I wish to emphasize the need for further study and investigation of this issue because the experience with "uterine isolation" is compelling and proves that the practice is nothing but direct contraceptive sterilization. It is also a practice with inappropriate medical justification . . . a practice which, in the 1990's, cannot be justified on medical moral grounds. One of the most important questions that needs to be asked with regard to "uterine isolation" is "What are we isolating the uterus from?" It is clear that the uterus is not being isolated from either the sperm or the ovum since they present no potential of risk. It is equally clear that the isolation of the uterus, so proposed, is not isolating the uterus from any known disease condition. the only possible thing that this procedure could be isolating the uterus from is a pregnancy . Thus, it seems equally clear that the primary intent of such a "uterine isolation" is contraceptive sterilization. Furthermore, the actual application of "uterine isolation" policies in Catholic hospitals suggests that it is direct contraceptive sterilization.
Urologists at NYU Langone sometimes recommend surgery to manage conditions that cause problems with sperm production in men with infertility. Surgical options include varicocelectomy, varicocele embolization, transurethral ejaculatory duct resection, vasectomy reversal, and microsurgical testicular sperm extraction.
Sterilization and Reversal · Sterilization Reversal
UCSF Center for Reproductive Health, ·UCSF Center for Reproductive Health
Overview of male reproductive surgery from UCSF's Center for Reproductive Health. Anatomical (surgical) male-factor problems can often be corrected with surgery, while some require medical therapy or assisted reproduction; effects on semen appear ~3 months after treatment (one spermatogenesis cycle). Covers varicocele (found in 42% of infertile men; semen improvement in ~67% and ~40% pregnancy after repair), vasectomy reversal (vasovasostomy with 85-99% return of sperm and 60-65% pregnancy with a healthy partner), ejaculatory duct obstruction (resection improves semen in ~70%, 20-30% pregnancy), and sperm-retrieval techniques (MESA, PESA, testicular extraction, testis mapping) used with IVF-ICSI when reconstruction is not possible.