Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40539546›Full record

SynthesisAsian journal of andrology2025

Surgical approaches to varicocele: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Lin-Jie Lu, Kai Xiong, Sheng-Lan Yuan, Bang-Wei Che, Jian-Cheng Zhai, Chuan-Chuan Wu, Yang Zhang, Hong-Yan Zhang, Kai-Fa Tang

Abstract readNetwork Meta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Asian journal of andrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

9 authors.

Lin-Jie LuThe First Clinical College, Guizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guiyang 550001, China.
Kai XiongThe First Clinical College, Guizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guiyang 550001, China.
Sheng-Lan YuanThe First Clinical College, Guizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guiyang 550001, China.
Bang-Wei CheDepartment of Urology and Andrology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guiyang 550001, China.
Jian-Cheng ZhaiDepartment of Urology and Andrology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guiyang 550001, China.
Chuan-Chuan WuThe First Clinical College, Guizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guiyang 550001, China.
Yang ZhangThe First Clinical College, Guizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guiyang 550001, China.
Hong-Yan ZhangPhysical Examination Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guiyang 550001, China.
Kai-Fa TangThe First Clinical College, Guizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guiyang 550001, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abstractSurgical methods for varicocele remain controversial. This study intends to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different surgical approaches for treating varicocele through a network meta-analysis (NMA). PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were thoroughly searched. In total, 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 24 cohort studies were included, covering 9 different surgical methods. Pairwise meta-analysis and NMA were performed by means of random-effects models, and interventions were ranked based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). According to the SUCRA, microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy (MSV; 91.6%), microsurgical retroperitoneal varicocelectomy (MRV; 78.2%), and microsurgical inguinal varicocelectomy (MIV; 76.7%) demonstrated the highest effectiveness in reducing postoperative recurrence rates. In this study, sclerotherapy embolization (SE; 87.2%), MSV (77.9%), and MIV (67.7%) showed the best results in lowering the risk of hydrocele occurrence. MIV (82.9%), MSV (75.9%), and coil embolization (CE; 58.7%) were notably effective in increasing sperm motility. Moreover, CE (76.7%), subinguinal approach varicocelectomy (SV; 69.2%), and SE (55.7%) were the most effective in increasing sperm count. SE (82.5%), transabdominal laparoscopic varicocelectomy (TLV; 76.5%), and MRV (52.7%) were superior in shortening the length of hospital stay. The incidence rates of adverse events for MRV (0), SE (3.3%), and MIV (4.1%) were notably low. Cluster analyses indicated that MSV was the most effective in the treatment of varicocele. Based on the existing evidence, MSV may represent the optimal choice for varicocele surgery. However, selecting clinical surgical strategies requires consideration of various factors, including patient needs, surgeon experience, and the learning curve.

Indexed as

Urologic Surgical Procedures, MaleVaricoceleEmbolization, TherapeuticHumansMaleMicrosurgeryRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSclerotherapyTreatment Outcomenetwork meta-analysissurgerysystemic reviewvaricocele

Identifiers

PMID40539546
PMCPMC12637882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.