ArticleScientific reports2018
Modified Inguinal Microscope-Assisted Varicocelectomy under Local Anesthesia: A Non-randomised Controlled Study of 3565 Cases.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Effects of General Versus Spinal Anesthesia on Spermiogram Parameters and Pregnancy Rates After Microscopic Subinguinal Varicocelectomy Surgery: Retrospective Cohort Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Preliminary study of ultrasound-guided ilioinguinal-iliohypogastric nerve block in performing low ligation of the spermatic vein.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Efficiency and safety of microscopic cluster ligation of the internal spermatic veins: A prospective matched case-control study.Central European journal of urology · 2025Article
- Prospective Comparison of Local Anesthesia with General or Spinal Anesthesia in Patients Treated with Microscopic Varicocelectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Clinical effectiveness of microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy with enhanced recovery after surgery for varicocele.Translational andrology and urology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Varicocele is a common abnormality, but the conventional microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy (CMSV) has some disadvantages. We invented Modified Inguinal Microscope-Assisted Varicocelectomy (MIMV) under local anesthesia. This study aims to evaluate MIMV by comparing it to CMSV in operating duration, time to return to normal activity, postoperative complications, achievement of natural pregnancy and improvement of semen quality for patients with infertility, pain score for those with scrotal pain, and so on. We enrolled 3089 patients who underwent MIMV and 476 who underwent CMSV in our hospital. Both the operating duration and the time to return to normal activity of MIMV was shorter than that of CMSV (P < 0.001). The recurrence rate (P < 0.001) and injury rate of vas deferens (P = 0.011) after MIMV were lower than that after CMSV. Moreover, patients with MIMV showed higher degree of satisfaction with the surgery experience and outcome than those with CMSV (P < 0.001). However, no statistical difference was found between the two groups in scores of pain due to surgery, postoperative varicose veins diameters, reflux duration, and the postoperative complications of wound infection, hydrocele, atrophy of testis, epididymitis, and scrotal hematoma. In summary, MIMV is a promising varicocelectomy and could be applied more in clinical practice.
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.