ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Comparison of Laparoscopic Varicocelectomy and Microsurgical Varicocelectomy with Internal Spermatic Vein-Superficial Epigastric Vein Bypass in Adolescent Patients.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesVaricocele is a common cause of testicular hypotrophy and impaired semen quality in adolescents. Laparoscopic varicocelectomy (LV) and microsurgical varicocelectomy (MV) with internal spermatic vein-superficial epigastric vein bypass are established treatment options. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes, complication rates, and functional recovery between LV and MV in adolescents.
methodsA retrospective two-center analysis was conducted on adolescents who underwent LV or MV between 2019 and 2024. Primary outcomes included postoperative complications, recurrence, testicular volume recovery, and semen parameter improvement. Secondary outcomes included operative time, hospital stay, and return to full activity. Statistical significance was set at
resultsA total of 430 patients met the inclusion criteria (270 LV, 160 MV). LV had a significantly shorter operative time (15 ± 5.1 min vs. 55.5 ± 6.4 min;
conclusionsBoth LV and MV are safe and effective techniques for adolescent varicocele repair, with comparable complication and recurrence rates. LV offers significantly shorter operative time, whereas MV provides a superior improvement in semen parameters, suggesting a potential advantage of microsurgical repair in adolescents presenting with abnormal semen analysis.
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.