Advertisement

International Urology and Nephrology

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 351–356 | Cite as

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

  • Berkan ReşorluEmail author
  • Cengiz Kara
  • Erhan Şahin
  • Ali Ünsal
Urology - Original Paper

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of our study was to assess the impact of patient age on sperm characteristics, and hormonal levels following varicocelectomy.

Methods

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%]).

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Age Sperm Surgery Varicocele 

References

  1. 1.
    Cornud F, Belin X, Amar E et al (1999) Varicocele: strategies in diagnosis and treatment. Eur Radiol 9(3):536–545. doi: 10.1007/s003300050706 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meacham R, Townsend R, Rademacher D et al (1994) The incidence of varicoceles in the general population when evaluated by physical examination, grey-scale sonography, and colour Doppler sonography. J Urol 151:1535–1538PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zini A, Boman J, Jarvi K et al (2008) Varicocelectomy for infertile couples with advanced paternal age. Urology 72(1):109–113. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2008.02.029 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zorgniotti AW, MacLeod J (1973) Studies in temperature, human semen quality, and varicocele. Fertil Steril 24:854–863PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pintus C, Rodriguez Matas MJ et al (2001) Varicocele in pediatric patients: comparative assessment of different therapeutic approaches. Urology 57:154–157. doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00859-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yaman O, Soygur T, Zumrutbas AE, Resorlu B (2006) Results of microsurcigal subinguinal varicocelectomy in children and adolescents. Urology 68(2):410–412. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2006.02.022 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ishıkawa T, Fujisawa M (2005) Effect of age and grade on surgery for patients with varicocele. Urology 65:768–772. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.11.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    World Health Organization (WHO) (1992) Laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and sperm-cervical mucus interaction. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldstein M, Dicker AP, Dwosh J et al (1992) Microsurgical inguinal varicocelectomy with delivery of the testis: an artery and lymphatic sparing technique. J Urol 148:1808–1811PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldstein M (2002) Surgical management of male infertility and related scrotal disorders. In: Walsh PC, Retik A, Vughan ED, wein A (eds) Campbels urology, vol 2. WB Saunders Co, Philadelphia, pp 1532–1589Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sharma RK, Agarwal A (1996) Role of reactive oxygen species in male infertility. Urology 48:835–850. doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(96)00313-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kocakoc E, Serhatlioglu S, Kiris A et al (2003) Color doppler sonographic evaluation of inter-relations between diameter, reflux and flow volume of testicular veins in varicocele. Eur J Radiol 47:251–256. doi: 10.1016/S0720-048X(02)00182-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Madgar I, Weissenberg R, Lunenfeld B et al (1995) Controlled trial of high spermatic vein ligation for varicocele in infertile men. Fertil Steril 63:120–124PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Callam MJ (1994) Epidemiology of varicose veins. Br J Urol 81:167–173Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Canales BK, Zapzalka MD, Ercole CJ et al (2005) Prevalance and effect of varicoceles in an elderly population. Urology 66:627–631. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.03.062 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oster J (1971) Varicocele in children and adolescents. An investigation of the incidence among Danish school children. Scand J Urol Nephrol 5:27–32. doi: 10.3109/00365597109133569 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Andrade-Rocha FT (2007) Significance of sperm characteristics in the evaluation of adolescents, adults and older men with varicocele. J Postgrad Med 53:8–13. doi: 10.4103/0022-3859.30320 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saypol DC (1981) Varicocele. J Androl 2:61–71Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tinga DJ, Jager S, Bruijnen CL et al (1984) Factors related to semen improvement and fertility after varicocele operation. Fertil Steril 41:404–410PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Berkan Reşorlu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cengiz Kara
    • 1
  • Erhan Şahin
    • 1
  • Ali Ünsal
    • 1
  1. 1.Kecioren Training and Research HospitalAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations