Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26807362›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2015

Comparison of three different embolic materials for varicocele embolization: retrospective study of tolerance, radiation and recurrence rate.

Nicolas Favard, Morgan Moulin, Patricia Fauque, Aurélie Bertaut, Sylvain Favelier, Louis Estivalet, Frédéric Michel, Luc Cormier, Paul Sagot, Romaric Loffroy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Varicocele Embolization: Interventional Radiologist's Perspective.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2022
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Nicolas Favard1 Deparment of Vascular, Oncologic and Interventional Radiology, 2 Department of Urology and Andrology, 3 Laboratory of Biology of Reproduction, François-Mitterrand Teaching Hospital, University of Dijon School of Medicine, Dijon Cedex, France ; 4 Department of Biostatistics, Georges François Leclerc Center, Dijon, France ; 5 Department of Gynaecology-Obstetrics, Fœtal Medicine and Sterility of Couple, François-Mitterrand Teaching Hospital, University of Dijon School of Medicine, Dijon Cedex, France ; 6 LE2I UMR CNRS 6306, Arts et Métiers, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Dijon, France.
Morgan Moulin1 Deparment of Vascular, Oncologic and Interventional Radiology, 2 Department of Urology and Andrology, 3 Laboratory of Biology of Reproduction, François-Mitterrand Teaching Hospital, University of Dijon School of Medicine, Dijon Cedex, France ; 4 Department of Biostatistics, Georges François Leclerc Center, Dijon, France ; 5 Department of Gynaecology-Obstetrics, Fœtal Medicine and Sterility of Couple, François-Mitterrand Teaching Hospital, University of Dijon School of Medicine, Dijon Cedex, France ; 6 LE2I UMR CNRS 6306, Arts et Métiers, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Dijon, France.
Patricia Fauque1 Deparment of Vascular, Oncologic and Interventional Radiology, 2 Department of Urology and Andrology, 3 Laboratory of Biology of Reproduction, François-Mitterrand Teaching Hospital, University of Dijon School of Medicine, Dijon Cedex, France ; 4 Department of Biostatistics, Georges François Leclerc Center, Dijon, France ; 5 Department of Gynaecology-Obstetrics, Fœtal Medicine and Sterility of Couple, François-Mitterrand Teaching Hospital, University of Dijon School of Medicine, Dijon Cedex, France ; 6 LE2I UMR CNRS 6306, Arts et Métiers, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Dijon, France.
Aurélie Bertaut1 Deparment of Vascular, Oncologic and Interventional Radiology, 2 Department of Urology and Andrology, 3 Laboratory of Biology of Reproduction, François-Mitterrand Teaching Hospital, University of Dijon School of Medicine, Dijon Cedex, France ; 4 Department of Biostatistics, Georges François Leclerc Center, Dijon, France ; 5 Department of Gynaecology-Obstetrics, Fœtal Medicine and Sterility of Couple, François-Mitterrand Teaching Hospital, University of Dijon School of Medicine, Dijon Cedex, France ; 6 LE2I UMR CNRS 6306, Arts et Métiers, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Dijon, France.
Sylvain Favelier1 Deparment of Vascular, Oncologic and Interventional Radiology, 2 Department of Urology and Andrology, 3 Laboratory of Biology of Reproduction, François-Mitterrand Teaching Hospital, University of Dijon School of Medicine, Dijon Cedex, France ; 4 Department of Biostatistics, Georges François Leclerc Center, Dijon, France ; 5 Department of Gynaecology-Obstetrics, Fœtal Medicine and Sterility of Couple, François-Mitterrand Teaching Hospital, University of Dijon School of Medicine, Dijon Cedex, France ; 6 LE2I UMR CNRS 6306, Arts et Métiers, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Dijon, France.
Louis Estivalet1 Deparment of Vascular, Oncologic and Interventional Radiology, 2 Department of Urology and Andrology, 3 Laboratory of Biology of Reproduction, François-Mitterrand Teaching Hospital, University of Dijon School of Medicine, Dijon Cedex, France ; 4 Department of Biostatistics, Georges François Leclerc Center, Dijon, France ; 5 Department of Gynaecology-Obstetrics, Fœtal Medicine and Sterility of Couple, François-Mitterrand Teaching Hospital, University of Dijon School of Medicine, Dijon Cedex, France ; 6 LE2I UMR CNRS 6306, Arts et Métiers, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Dijon, France.
Frédéric Michel1 Deparment of Vascular, Oncologic and Interventional Radiology, 2 Department of Urology and Andrology, 3 Laboratory of Biology of Reproduction, François-Mitterrand Teaching Hospital, University of Dijon School of Medicine, Dijon Cedex, France ; 4 Department of Biostatistics, Georges François Leclerc Center, Dijon, France ; 5 Department of Gynaecology-Obstetrics, Fœtal Medicine and Sterility of Couple, François-Mitterrand Teaching Hospital, University of Dijon School of Medicine, Dijon Cedex, France ; 6 LE2I UMR CNRS 6306, Arts et Métiers, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Dijon, France.
Luc Cormier1 Deparment of Vascular, Oncologic and Interventional Radiology, 2 Department of Urology and Andrology, 3 Laboratory of Biology of Reproduction, François-Mitterrand Teaching Hospital, University of Dijon School of Medicine, Dijon Cedex, France ; 4 Department of Biostatistics, Georges François Leclerc Center, Dijon, France ; 5 Department of Gynaecology-Obstetrics, Fœtal Medicine and Sterility of Couple, François-Mitterrand Teaching Hospital, University of Dijon School of Medicine, Dijon Cedex, France ; 6 LE2I UMR CNRS 6306, Arts et Métiers, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Dijon, France.
Paul Sagot1 Deparment of Vascular, Oncologic and Interventional Radiology, 2 Department of Urology and Andrology, 3 Laboratory of Biology of Reproduction, François-Mitterrand Teaching Hospital, University of Dijon School of Medicine, Dijon Cedex, France ; 4 Department of Biostatistics, Georges François Leclerc Center, Dijon, France ; 5 Department of Gynaecology-Obstetrics, Fœtal Medicine and Sterility of Couple, François-Mitterrand Teaching Hospital, University of Dijon School of Medicine, Dijon Cedex, France ; 6 LE2I UMR CNRS 6306, Arts et Métiers, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Dijon, France.
Romaric Loffroy1 Deparment of Vascular, Oncologic and Interventional Radiology, 2 Department of Urology and Andrology, 3 Laboratory of Biology of Reproduction, François-Mitterrand Teaching Hospital, University of Dijon School of Medicine, Dijon Cedex, France ; 4 Department of Biostatistics, Georges François Leclerc Center, Dijon, France ; 5 Department of Gynaecology-Obstetrics, Fœtal Medicine and Sterility of Couple, François-Mitterrand Teaching Hospital, University of Dijon School of Medicine, Dijon Cedex, France ; 6 LE2I UMR CNRS 6306, Arts et Métiers, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Dijon, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate pain, radiation and recurrence rates in patients undergoing varicocele embolization with three different embolic materials.

methodsRetrospective study of 182 consecutive patients who underwent transcatheter retrograde varicocele embolization from July 2011 to May 2015 with glue (Glubran(®)2) (group 1, n=63), mechanical agents (coils and/or plugs) (group 2, n=53) or a sclerosing agent (polidocanol) (group 3, n=66). Patients were asked by telephone interview to evaluate pain during embolization and at 1, 7 and 30 days using a quantitative pain scale ranging from 0 to 10. Duration of scopy, kinetic energy released per unit mass (kerma) and dose area product (DAP) were assessed as radiation parameters during embolization procedures. Recurrence rates after treatment were also evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed using parametric and non-parametric tests.

resultsPatients in the three study groups were comparable for age, clinical indication and embolization side. No difference was noted for significant pain (pain score ≥3) during embolization and at 1, 7 and 30 days after treatment. Discomfort (pain score <3) was more frequent in group 1 than in groups 2 and 3 at 7 days after the procedure (P=0.049). No difference in discomfort was noted during embolization or at 1 and 30 days. Duration of scopy was shorter (P<0.0001) and kerma was lower (P=0.0087) in group 1 than in groups 2 and 3. DAP was lower in group 1 than in group 2 (P=0.04) but no difference was noted between groups 1 and 3, and groups 2 and 3. The recurrence rate at a mean follow-up of 24.4 months (range, 2-53 months) was significantly lower in group 1 than in the two other groups (P=0.032).

conclusionsThe use of Glubran(®)2 acrylic glue for varicocele embolization is safe and leads to less radiation and lower recurrence rates than is the case for other embolic materials without any more significant pain.

Indexed as

coilscyanoacrylate glueembolizationpolidocanolVaricocele

Identifiers

PMID26807362
PMCPMC4700243

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.