Article Sidebar

Published
June 11, 2026
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0

Main Article Content

Abstract

Varicocele is a common and correctable cause of male infertility, which this study was aimed to ascertain the impacts of microsurgical varicocelectomy with regard to the parameters of semen, as well as to contrast them with the precise scrotal ultrasound values. A cross-sectional, prospective study of 108 infertile men having palpable varicoceles (mean age 31.5 +/- 5.8 years; Grade 82.4 left; Grades I-III) was carried out. Standardized subinguinal varicocelectomy of the micro-surgeries was performed on all the patients. The outcome was semen analysis (WHO 6th edition) and scrotal ultrasound/Doppler parameters (venous diameter, reflux, testicular volume, and parenchyma echotexture) between baseline (preoperative) and 12-month follow-up. All semen parameters improved statistically at 12 months; concentration improved from 18.5 x10⁶/mL to 29.7 x10⁶/mL, progressive motility from 22.4 to 33.5x, and total motile sperm count (TMSC) from 23.1 to 52.3 x10. On the whole, 86.3 percent of patients demonstrated an improvement in 1 or more semen parameters. At the same time, the ultrasound showed a high level of anatomical correction: the mean venous diameter decreased (3.5 mm to 1.8 mm), the volume of the left testicle increased (14.8 to 16.1 mL), and parenchymal heterogeneity was decreased. At one year, the natural pregnancy rate of couples who tried was 35.9%. Microsurgical varicocelectomy produces considerable and statistically significant increases in semen quality and scrotal ultrasound parameters. Anatomical correction recorded by ultrasound, namely, volume increase of testicles and decrease of the venous diameter, is also a powerful objective correlate of the improved spermatogenic function.

Keywords

Microsurgical subinguinal Varicocele Semen quality ultrasound

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Mazin Adday Hasoon Muzan

Creative Commons License

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

References

  1. Barratt CLR, BjornDahl L, De Jonge CJ, Lamb DJ, Osman Y, McLachlan R, et al. Diagnosis of male infertility: evaluation of the evidence to aid the formulation of global WHO guidance, challenges, and research opportunities. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23(6):660-80. https://doi:10.1093/humupd/dmx021
  2. Boivin J, Bunting L, Collins JA, Nygren KG. International prevalence and treatment-seeking of infertility: potential need and demand of infertility medical care. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(6):1506-12. https://doi:10.1093/humrep/dem046
  3. Al-Kandari AM, Shabaan H, Ibrahim HM, Elshebiny YH, Shokeir AA. Comparison of the results of the various methods of varicocelectomy: open inguinal, laparoscopic, and subinguinal microscopic varicocelectomy: a randomized clinical trial. Urology. 2007;69(3):417-20. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2007.01.057
  4. Ding H, Tian J, Du W, Zhang L, Wang H, Wang Z. Open non-microsurgical, laparoscopic, or open microsurgical varicocelectomy in men infertile: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BJU Int. 2012;110(10):1536-42. https://doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11093.x
  5. Al-Kandari AM, Khudair A, Arafa A, Zanaty F, Ezz A, El-Shazly M. Microscopic subinguinal varicocelectomy in 100 consecutive cases: Spermatic cord vascular anatomy, recurrence, and hydrocele outcome analysis. Arab J Urol. 2018;16(1):181-7. doi:10.1016/j.aju.2017.12.002
  6. Hopps CV, Lemer ML, Schlegel PN, Goldstein M. Intraoperative varicocele anatomy: a microscopic examination of the inguinal versus the subinguinal approach. J Urol. 2003;170(6):2366-70. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000097400.67715.f8
  7. Shiraishi K, Oka S, Matsuyama H. Surgical comparison of the subinguinal and high inguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy in the treatment of adolescent varicocele. Int J Urol. 2016;23(4):338-42. doi:10.1111/iju. 13050
  8. Wang J, Liu Q, Wang X, Guan R, Li S, Zhang Y, et al. Modified inguinal microscope-assisted varicocelectomy under local anesthesia: 3565 cases in a non-randomized controlled study. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):2800. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-21313-0
  9. Yuan R, Zhuo H, Cao D, Wei Q. Efficacy, and safety of varicocelectomies: a meta-analysis. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2017;63(2):120-9. https://doi:10.1080/19396368.2016.1265161
  10. Cayan S, Acar D, Ülger S, Akbay E. Adolescent varicocele repair: long-term outcomes and comparison of surgical methods based on the use of optical magnification in 100 cases in a university hospital. J Urol. 2005;174(5):2003-7. https://doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000176488.44895.7b
  11. Ghanem H, Anis T, El-Nashar A, Shamloul R. Subinguinal microvaricocelectomy vs retroperitoneal varicocelectomy: a comparative study of complications and surgical outcome. Urology. 2004;64(5):1005-9. https://doi:10.1016/j.urology.2004.06.060
  12. Kim KH, Lee JY, Kang DH, Lee H, Seo JT, Cho KS. Effect of surgical repair of varicocele on the pregnancy rate in men with subfertility due to clinical varicocele and poor semen quality: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Korean J Urol. 2013;54(10):703-9. https://doi:10.4111/kju.2013.54.10.703
  13. Ramasamy R, Schlegel PN. Microsurgical inguinal varicocelectomy with and without delivery of testicles. Urology. 2006;68(6):1323-6. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2006.08.1113
  14. Chan PT, Wright EJ, Goldstein M. Incidence, and postoperative results of accidental ligation of the testicular artery during microsurgical varicocelectomy. J Urol. 2005;173(2):482-4. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000148942.61914.2e
  15. Lv KL, Zhuang JT, Zhao L, Wan Z, Zhang YD, Gao Y, et al. Anatomy of varicocele in subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy of Chinese men. Andrologia. 2015;47(10):1190-5. doi:10.1111/and.12402
  16. Paick S, Choi WS. Varicocele and testicular pain: review. World J Mens Health. 2019;37(1):4-11. https://doi:10.5534/wjmh.170010
  17. Al-Gadheeb A, El-Tholoth HS, Albalawi A, Althobity A, AlNumi M, Alafraa T et al. Microscopic subinguinal varicocelectomy and testicular pain: a retrospective study of their outcomes and predictors of pain relief. Basic Clin Androl. 2021;31(1):1. doi:10.1186/s12610-020-00119-z
  18. Ouanes Y, Rahoui M, Chaker K, Marrak M, Bibi M, Mrad Dali K, et al. Comparisons of three techniques of surgical treatment of varicocele in infertile men: functional outcomes. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022;78:103937. https://doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103937
  19. Majholm B, Engbak J, Bartholdy J, Oerding H, Ahlburg P, Ulrik AM, et al. Is day surgery safe? Danish multicentre study on morbidity following 57,709 day surgeries. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2012;56(3):323-31. doi:10.1111/j.1399-6576.2011.02631.x
  20. Alacadag M, Cilingir D. Pre-surgical anxiety and day surgery patients' need for information. J Perianesth Nurs. 2018;33(5):658-68. https://doi:10.1016/j.jopan.2017.06.125
  21. Walker KJ, Smith AF. Premedication for anxiety in adult day surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(4): CD002192. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002192
  22. Agarwal A, Cannarella R, Saleh R, Boitrelle F, Gul M, Toprak T, et al. The effect of varicocele repair on semen parameters in male infertile patients: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. World J Mens Health. 2023;41(2):289-310. https://doi:10.5534/wjmh.220142
  23. Song Y, Lu Y, Xu Y, Yang Y, Liu X. Comparison between microsurgical varicocelectomy with and without testicular delivery for treatment of varicocele: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Andrologia. 2019;51(9):e13363. doi:10.1111/and.13363
  24. Ouanes Y, Rahoui M, Chaker K, Marrak M, Bibi M, Mrad Dali K, et al. Functional outcomes of surgical treatment of varicocele in infertile men: comparison of three techniques. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022;78:103937. https://doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2022.10393

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.