Current approach to therapy for male infertility in patients with varicocele

  • Authors: Gamidov SI1, Ovchinnikov RI1, Popova AI.1, Tkhagapsoeva RA2, Izhbaev SK.2
  • Affiliations:
    1. ФГБУ "Научный центр акушерства, гинекологии и перинатологии им. акад. В.И. Кулакова" Минздравсоцразвития России
    2. ГБОУ ВПО "Российский национальный исследовательский медицинский университет им. Н.И. Пирогова" Минздравсоцразвития России
  • Issue: Vol 84, No 10 (2012)
  • Pages: 56-61
  • Section: Editorial
  • URL: https://journals.rcsi.science/0040-3660/article/view/31129
  • ID: 31129

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Aim. To improve the results of treatment for male infertility in patients with varicocele and to evaluate the efficiency of microsurgical varicocelectomy performed by the same surgeon in a large group of patients. Subjects and methods. 1127 infertile males aged 22 to 52 years (mean 29.6±9.2 years) with varicocele were examined. An analysis of the patients' presenting complaints, collection of history data, examinations, spermogram studies, mixed agglutination reaction (MAR) test, ultrasonography and Doppler study of the scrotum, estimation of blood hormone and inhibin B levels, and genetic studies (karyotype, azoospermia factor (AZF), cystic fibrosis gene) were done. The analysis excluded 193 patients with other causes of infertility. 728 patients underwent uni- and bilateral microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy according to the Marmar procedure modified by the authors, 107 had spermatogenesis stimulation (clomiphene citrate, vitamins A and E, selenium, L-carnitine, pentoxifylline, antioxidants) for 3-6 months; 56 patients were untreated. The follow-up period was 3-12 months depending on the efficiency of treatment. Control examination was made every 3 months. Results. After microsurgical varicocelectomy, there were increases in the concentration of spermatozoa from 8.8±7.2 to 23.2±7.9 mln/ml and their active motility from 7.2±5.4 to 31.2±5.2% (category A); the proportion of abnormal sperm forms (Kruger morphology) reduced from 95.4±5 to 87.8±8.3%. The patients with azoospermia (n=39), spermatozoa appeared in 46.2% of cases; 52.8% of the patients with complete teratozoospermia (n=36) exhibited morphologically normal sperm postoperatively (unlike the results of treatment in the comparison groups). Higher sperm concentrations were observed after both microsurgical varicocele and empirical stimulation of spermatogenesis in 69.9 and 29.9% of the patients, respectively. Spontaneous conception occurred in the partners of 47.1% of the males after microsurgical varicocele, 21.5% of those after drug stimulation, and 3.6% of those untreated. Conclusion. Microsurgical varicocele is the most effective and safe treatment option for male infertility in patients with varicocele. Its effect far exceeds the results of drug stimulation of spermatogenesis and those of the follow-up. It lies in a rapid and significant improvement in spermatogenic parameters just 3-6 months after surgery and further continues to increase. This gives rise to spontaneous pregnancy in about 50% of the infertile couples within a year postsurgery. Microsurgical varicocele may be recommended not only as the gold standard surgical treatment for varicocele, but also for the therapy of male infertility in these patients. At the same time, prior to surgical treatment for varicocele, one should rule out all other causes of male infertility and female factor (particularly tubal one).

About the authors

S I Gamidov

ФГБУ "Научный центр акушерства, гинекологии и перинатологии им. акад. В.И. Кулакова" Минздравсоцразвития России

R I Ovchinnikov

ФГБУ "Научный центр акушерства, гинекологии и перинатологии им. акад. В.И. Кулакова" Минздравсоцразвития России

Email: riododc@rambler.ru

A Iu Popova

ФГБУ "Научный центр акушерства, гинекологии и перинатологии им. акад. В.И. Кулакова" Минздравсоцразвития России

R A Tkhagapsoeva

ГБОУ ВПО "Российский национальный исследовательский медицинский университет им. Н.И. Пирогова" Минздравсоцразвития России

S Kh Izhbaev

ГБОУ ВПО "Российский национальный исследовательский медицинский университет им. Н.И. Пирогова" Минздравсоцразвития России

References

  1. Nagler H.M., Martinis F.G. Varicocele. In: Lipshultz LI, Howards S, editors. Infertility in the male. St. Louis (MO): Mosby Year Book 1997: 336-359.
  2. Witt M.A., Lipshultz L.I. Varicocele: a progressive or static lesion? Urology 1993; 42 (5): 541-543.
  3. Wong W.Y., Thomas C.M., Merkus J.M. et al. Male factor subfertility: possible causes and the impact of nutritional factors. Fertil Steril 2000; 73 (3): 435-442.
  4. Nieschlag E., Hertle L., Fischedick A. et al. Update on treatment of varicocele: counselling as effective as occlusion of the vena spermatica. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 (8): 2147-2150.
  5. Boman J.M., Libman J., Zini A. Microsurgical varicocelectomy for isolated asthenospermia. J Urol 2008; 180 (5): 2129-2132.
  6. Ficarra V., Cerruto M.A., Liguori G. et al. Treatment of varicocele in subfertile men: the Cochrane review, a contrary opinion. Eur Urol 2006; 49 (2): 258-263.
  7. Nussir M., Pacik D. Long-term results of microsurgical varicocelectomy. Rozhl Chir 2006; 85 (11): 566-569.
  8. Jungwirth A., Gögüs C., Hauser G. et al. Clinical outcome of microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy in infertile men. Andrologia 2001; 33 (2): 71-74.
  9. Agarwal A., Deepinder F., Cocuzza M. et al. Efficacy of varicocelectomy in improving semen parameters: new meta-analytical approach. Urology 2007; 70 (3): 532-538.
  10. Marmar J.L., Agarwal A., Prabakaran S. et al. Reassessing the value of varicocelectomy as a treatment for male subfertility with a new meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2007; 88 (3): 639-648.
  11. Yaman O., Soygur T., Zumrutbas A.E. et al. Results of microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy in children and adolescents. Urology 2006; 68 (2): 410-412.
  12. Schiff J., Kelly C., Goldstein M. et al. Managing varicoceles in children: results with microsurgical varicocelectomy. BJU Int 2005; 95 (3): 399-402.
  13. Al-Said S., Al-Naimi A., Al-Ansari A. et al. Varicocelectomy for male infertility: a comparative study of open, laparoscopic and microsurgical approaches. J Urol 2008; 180 (1): 266-270.
  14. Al-Kandari A.M., Shabaan H., Ibrahim H.M. et al. Comparison of outcomes of different varicocelectomy techniques: open inguinal, laparoscopic, and subinguinal microscopic varicocelectomy: a randomized clinical trial. Urology 2007; 69 (3): 417-420.
  15. Kumar R., Gupta N.P. Subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy: evaluation of the results. Urol Int 2003; 71 (4): 368-372.
  16. Jallouli H., Slimen M., Sahnoun A. Surgical treatment of varicocele improves fertility and facilitates medically assisted procreation. Prog Urol 2008; 18 (8): 543-549.
  17. Kamal K.M., 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 (5): 1013-1016.
  18. French D.B., Desai N.R., Agarwal A. Varicocele repair: does it still have a role in infertility treatment? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2008; 20 (3): 269-274.
  19. Ku J.H., Kim S.W., Park K. et al. Benefits of microsurgical repair of adolescent varicocele: comparison of semen parameters in fertile and infertile adults with varicocele. Urology 2005; 65 (3): 554-558.
  20. Shindel A.W., Yan Y., Naughton C.K. Does the number and size of veins ligated at left-sided microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy affect semen analysis outcomes? Urology 2007; 69 (6): 1176-1180.
  21. Zini A., Boman J., Jarvi K. et al. Varicocelectomy for infertile couples with advanced paternal age. Urology 2008; 72 (1): 109-113.
  22. Chan P.T., Wright E.J., Goldstein M. Incidence and postoperative outcomes of accidental ligation of the testicular artery during microsurgical varicocelectomy. J Urol 2005; 173 (2): 482-484.
  23. Acar H., Kilinc M., Guven S. et al. Comparison of semen profile and frequency of chromosome aneuploidies in sperm nuclei of patients with varicocele before and after varicocelectomy. Andrologia 2009; 41 (3): 157-162.
  24. Weedin J.W., Khera M., Lipshultz L.I. Varicocele repair in patients with nonobstructive azoospermia: a meta-analysis. J Urol 2010; 183 (6): 2309-2315.

Copyright (c) 2012 Consilium Medicum

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
 
 


This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies