4.4 Article

Effect of Varicocelectomy on Testicular Volume in Children and Adolescents: A Meta-analysis

Journal

UROLOGY
Volume 79, Issue 6, Pages 1340-1345

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.02.022

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of surgical intervention on catch-up growth as determined by a decreased testicular volume discrepancy in children and adolescents with varicocele. METHODS A systematic search was performed using MEDLINE and the PubMed database and cross-referenced as of October 28, 2011 using the terms varicocele, children, adolescent, surgery, and testicular volume. All relevant studies were of the testicular volume discrepancy variance before and after surgical repair. The outcomes included the number of patients with initial testicular atrophy and those with catch-up growth after surgical repair. The database search, quality evaluation, and data extraction were independently performed by 2 reviewers. RESULTS Of 75 studies, 14 were included for analysis and involved 1475 patients. The combined analysis showed that the testicular volume discrepancy was significantly reduced after surgery in the >= 10% group (P < .00001) and >= 20% group (P < .00001), respectively. No difference was found between the 2 groups (P = .70). Taken together, the number of patient with testicular volume disproportion in all pediatric and adolescent varicocele patients significantly decreased after surgery (P < .00001). The average proportion of catch-up growth was 76.4% (range 52.6%-93.8%). CONCLUSION The meta-analysis suggested clear advantages of surgical intervention on reducing testicular hypotrophy when the discrepancy is >= 10% in children and adolescents with varicocele. Additional prospective and controlled studies are warranted to elucidate the treatment of children and adolescents with varicocele. UROLOGY 79: 1340-1345, 2012. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc.

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