SynthesisInternational urology and nephrology2016
The role of testicular artery in laparoscopic varicocelectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International urology and nephrology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Evaluation of the aquaporin molecules characterization in the sperm cells of men from different aged.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
- The Impact of Herpes Simplex Virus on Semen Parameters in Men with Idiopathic Infertility: A Systematic Review.International journal of fertility & sterility · 2023Article
- Male Sex Hormones, Metabolic Syndrome, and Aquaporins: A Triad of Players in Male (in)Fertility.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Some of the Factors Involved in Male Infertility: A Prospective Review.International journal of general medicine · 2020Review
- Subcutaneous endoscopically assisted ligation of spermatic vessels (SEAL-SV) using an epidural-&-spinal needle: a novel technique to repair adolescent varicocele.Pediatric surgery international · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of artery preserving versus artery non-preserving in laparoscopic varicocelectomy.
methodsAll publications up until October 2015 were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane library. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies (CSs) that compared the difference in two operative approaches in laparoscopic varicocelectomy were included. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata version 12.0.
resultsA total of four RCTs and ten CSs involving 503 cases with artery preserving and 911 cases with artery non-preserving met our inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis showed that artery preserving had higher recurrence rate [risk ratio (RR) = 2.91, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.83-4.61; P = 0.000], lower incidence of hydrocele formation (RR = 0.18; 95 % CI 0.08-0.42; P = 0.000), and prolonged operating time [standard mean difference (SMD) = 1.27; 95 % CI 0.17-2.37; P = 0.023], compared with artery non-preserving in laparoscopic varicocelectomy. The results were similar in postoperative catch-up growth (RR = 1.00; 95 % CI 0.86-1.17; P = 0.985) and testicular atrophy (RR = 0.36; 95 % CI 0.09-1.54; P = 0.169). Besides, no significant difference was found in sperm concentration, motility, and normal morphology between two groups, as well as on postoperative pregnancy rate (RR = 0.95; 95 % CI 0.65-1.40; P = 0.809).
conclusionWith the advantages of less recurrence, easier operating and less time spending, and comparable results in other respects, artery non-preserving is preferable to artery preserving in laparoscopic varicocelectomy, although there is a relatively high incidence of hydrocele formation. Considering the limitation of included studies, more large-scaled RCTs are required to confirm the present findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26971102What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.