SynthesisAsian journal of andrology
Comparison of surgical effect and postoperative patient experience between laparoendoscopic single-site and conventional laparoscopic varicocelectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Asian journal of andrology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Indocyanine green fluorescence-guided transumbilical three-port laparoscopic suprainguinal varicocelectomy with testicular artery and lymphatic preservation for pediatric varicocele: a retrospective cohort study.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- Thermally Initiated Structural Transformations in the Temperature Range (624-643) ± 1 K for Amorphous Metal Alloy AlMaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present meta-analysis was conducted to compare the clinical effect and patient experience of laparoendoscopic single-site varicocelectomy (LESSV) and conventional laparoscopic varicocelectomy. The candidate studies were included after literature search of database Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. Related information on essential data and outcome measures was extracted from the eligible studies by two independent authors, and a meta-analysis was conducted using STATA 12.0 software. Subgroup analyses were conducted by study design (RCT and non-RCT). The odds ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were used to estimate the outcome measures. Seven articles were included in our meta-analysis. The results indicated that patient who had undergone LESSV had a shorter duration of back to work (overall: SMD = -1.454, 95% CI: -2.502--0.405, P = 0.007; non-RCT: SMD = -2.906, 95% CI: -3.796--2.017, P = 0.000; and RCT: SMD = -0.841, 95% CI: -1.393--0.289, P = 0.003) and less pain experience at 3 h or 6 h (SMD = -0.447, 95% CI: -0.754--0.139, P = 0.004), day 1 (SMD = -0.477, 95% CI: -0.905--0.05, P = 0.029), and day 2 (SMD = -0.612, 95% CI: -1.099--0.125, P = 0.014) postoperatively based on RCT studies. However, the meta-analyses based on operation time, clinical effect (improvement of semen quality and scrotal pain relief), and complications (hydrocele and recurrence) yielded nonsignificant results. In conclusion, LESSV had a rapid recovery and less pain experience over conventional laparoscopic varicocelectomy. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two varicocelectomy techniques in terms of the clinical effect and the incidence of hydrocele and varicocele recurrence. More high-quality studies are warranted for a comprehensive conclusion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.