Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 420

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Treatment of Palpable Varicocele in Infertile Men: A Meta‐analysis to Define the Best Technique

Open access
Çayan, Selahittin, Shavakhabov, Shavkat, Kadioğlu, Ateş·2009·Journal of Andrology

Abstract

ABSTRACT: To date, there have been no randomized, controlled, prospective clinical studies that compare various techniques to describe the best method for the treatment of varicocele in infertile men. This meta‐analysis aims to address the best treatment modality for palpable varicocele in infertile men. A MEDLINE search was performed for articles published between January 1980 and April 2008, and we analyzed 36 studies reporting postoperative spontaneous pregnancy rates and/or complication rates after varicocele repair using various techniques in infertile men with palpable unilateral or bilateral varicocele. Spontaneous pregnancy rates and postoperative complications such as hydrocele formation, recurrence, or persistence were compared among the techniques. In addition, interventional failure with radiologic embolization and reported complications with the laparoscopic approach were reviewed. Overall spontaneous pregnancy rates were 37.69% in the Palomo technique series, 41.97% in the microsurgical varicocelectomy techniques, 30.07% in the laparoscopic varicocelectomy techniques, 33.2% in the radiologic embolization, and 36% in the macroscopic inguinal (Ivanissevich) varicocelectomy series, revealing significant differences among the techniques (P = .001). Overall recurrence rates were 14.97% in the Palomo technique series, 1.05% in the microsurgical varicocelectomy techniques, 4.3% in the laparoscopic varicocelectomy techniques, 12.7% in the radiologic embolization, and 2.63% in the macroscopic inguinal (Ivanissevich) or subinguinal varicocelectomy series, revealing significant difference among the techniques (P = .001). Overall hydrocele formation rates were 8.24% in the Palomo technique series, 0.44% in the microsurgical varicocelectomy techniques, 2.84% in the laparoscopic varicocelectomy, and 7.3% in the macroscopic inguinal (Ivanissevich) or subinguinal varicocelectomy series, revealing significant difference among the techniques (P = .001). We conclude that the microsurgical varicocelectomy technique has higher spontaneous pregnancy rates and lower postoperative recurrence and hydrocele formation than conventional varicocelectomy techniques in infertile men. However, prospective, randomized, and comparative studies with large number of patients are needed to compare the efficacy of microsurgical varicocelectomy with that of other treatment modalities in infertile men with varicocele.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2164/jandrol.108.005967

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 420

Metadata

Authors
Çayan, S., Shavakhabov, S., & Kadioğlu, A.
Venue
Journal of Andrology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-01-02
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
33-40
ISSN
  • 0196-3635 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-4640
OpenAlex
W2042549092
Cited by
420
References
0
FWCI
17.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Treatment of Palpable Varicocele in Infertile Men: A Meta‐analysis to Define the Best Technique. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2164/jandrol.108.005967
The paper
Çayan, S., Shavakhabov, S., & Kadioğlu, A. (2009). Treatment of Palpable Varicocele in Infertile Men: A Meta‐analysis to Define the Best Technique. Journal of Andrology. https://doi.org/10.2164/jandrol.108.005967

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.