4.4 Article

The significance of age on success of surgery for patients with varicocele

Journal

INTERNATIONAL UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY
Volume 42, Issue 2, Pages 351-356

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11255-009-9589-y

Keywords

Age; Sperm; Surgery; Varicocele

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of our study was to assess the impact of patient age on sperm characteristics, and hormonal levels following varicocelectomy. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of 96 patients with a mean age of 28.1 years (range 18-48), who underwent microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy because of infertility, palpable swelling, or scrotal pain. These groups of patients were categorized into three age groups: group I, 18-25 years old at the time of varicocelectomy (n = 35 [36.5%]); group II, 26-35 years old (n = 43 [44.8%]); and group III, older than 36 years (n = 18 [18.8%]). Of the 96 patients, 68 attended the initial postoperative visit at 1 month and 96 attended the 6 months follow-up visit. Before surgery, no significant differences were seen among the three groups in sperm concentration, sperm motility and hormonal levels. After ligation, the sperm concentration and motility rates increased in all groups, but no significant differences were seen among the three groups for those parameters (P = 0.235 and P = 0.729, respectively). However, no significant changes in follicle-stimulating hormone, LH, testosterone levels were observed between each group. At sixth month of follow-up, two patients in group II, and a patient in group III, had persistent scrotal pain, and a patient in group I had varicocele recurrence; but no patients had hydrocele formation, evidence of testicular loss or progressive hypotrophy. The results of our study have shown that age is not a significant factor for outcomes of surgery and subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy in all aged patients has a similar high success rates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available