European urology · 2001
Is selective internal spermatic venography necessary in detecting recurrent varicocele after surgical repair?
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tefekli A, Cayan S, Uluocak N, Poyanli A, Alp T, Kadioğlu A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Surgical varicocele repair can be complicated by postoperative recurrence. The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic value of scrotal color Doppler ultrasonography (SCDU) and selective internal spermatic venography (SISV) in detecting recurrent venous reflux after conventional varicocelectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 36 men (mean age 30.1 +/- 4.3 years) with a persisting left unilateral varicocele and abnormal semen parameters more than 12 months after conventional varicocele repair were evaluated with physical examination, semen analyses, SCDU and SISV.
RESULTS: The median interval between primary varicocelectomy and presentation was 13 (range 12-16) months. Physical examination at that time revealed a grade- I left varicocele in 22 and a grade-II left varicocele in 14 patients. Semen analyses showed oligoasthenozoospermia in 30 patients (83%), asthenozoospermia in 4 (11%) and oligozoospermia in 2 (6%). Although all patients had reflux on SCDU, SISV confirmed reflux in 8 (22%) cases. SISV was not able to document recurrence in 28 cases (78%) that were detected by SCDU.
CONCLUSIONS: Considering clinical findings, confirmed with SCDU, and semen parameters as the reference point in the diagnosis of recurrent varicocele, the sensitivity of SISV in the radiological documentation of recurrence was 22%. SISV was unable to document the recurrence in 78% of cases implying that reflux was not through internal spermatic veins. Thus, we conclude that SISV is neither necessary nor sufficient in the evaluation of recurrent varicocele.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 36 men (mean age 30.1 +/- 4.3 years) with a persisting left unilateral varicocele and abnormal semen parameters more than 12 months after conventional varicocele repair were evaluated with physical examination, semen analyses, SCDU and SISV.
RESULTS: The median interval between primary varicocelectomy and presentation was 13 (range 12-16) months. Physical examination at that time revealed a grade- I left varicocele in 22 and a grade-II left varicocele in 14 patients. Semen analyses showed oligoasthenozoospermia in 30 patients (83%), asthenozoospermia in 4 (11%) and oligozoospermia in 2 (6%). Although all patients had reflux on SCDU, SISV confirmed reflux in 8 (22%) cases. SISV was not able to document recurrence in 28 cases (78%) that were detected by SCDU.
CONCLUSIONS: Considering clinical findings, confirmed with SCDU, and semen parameters as the reference point in the diagnosis of recurrent varicocele, the sensitivity of SISV in the radiological documentation of recurrence was 22%. SISV was unable to document the recurrence in 78% of cases implying that reflux was not through internal spermatic veins. Thus, we conclude that SISV is neither necessary nor sufficient in the evaluation of recurrent varicocele.