3.8 Review

Chronic orchialgia: Review of treatments old and new

期刊

INDIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 32, 期 1, 页码 21-26

出版社

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/0970-1591.173110

关键词

Chronic orchialgia; chronic scrotal pain; testicular pain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Chronic orchialgia is historically and currently a challenging disease to treat. It is a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for physicians. Conservative therapy has served as the first line of treatment. For those who fail conservative therapy, surgical intervention may be required. We aim to provide a review of currently available surgical options and novel surgical treatment options. Methods: A review of current literature was performed using PubMed. Literature discussing treatment options for chronic orchialgia were identified. The following search terms were used to identify literature that was relevant to this review: Chronic orchialgia, testicular pain, scrotal content pain, and microsurgical denervation of the spermatic cord (MDSC). Results: The incidence of chronic orchialgia has been increasing over time. In the USA, it affects up to 100,000 men per year due to varying etiologies. The etiology of chronic orchialgia can be a confounding problem. Conservative therapy should be viewed as the first line therapy. Studies have reported poor success rates. Current surgical options for those who fail conservative options include varicocelectomy, MDSC, epididymectomy, and orchiectomy. Novel treatment options include microcryoablation of the peri-spermatic cord, botox injection, and amniofix injection. Conclusion: Chronic orchialgia has been and will continue to be a challenging disease to treat due to its multiple etiologies and variable treatment outcomes. Further studies are needed to better understand the problem. Treatment options for patients with chronic orchialgia are improving. Additional studies are warranted to better understand the long-term durability of this treatment options.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据