Predictors of fertility recovery in subfertile men after varicocelectomy


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Introduction. Varicocelectomy does not always lead to semen improvement and male fertility recovery. Objectives. Analysis of total progressive motile sperm count (TPMSC) predictive role in fertility recovery of subfertile man after varicocelectomy in combination with other predictors. Materials and methods. This prospective, open, multi-center study comprises 93 men from infertile couples with clinical varicocele who underwent microsurgical (inguinal or subinguinal) varicocelectomy. The changes in the standard semen analysis studied according to WHO 2010 Standards. We also evaluated spontaneous pregnancy rates. A discriminant analysis was carried out with step-by-step selection to identify reliable predictors of pregnancy after varicocelectomy. An increase in TPMSC by at least 12.5 million was considered as a good effect of varicocele repair (reference values for the number and progressive sperm motility according to WHO 2010: 39 million x 0.32 (32%) progressively motile). Patients were divided into 3 groups in regards of direction and degree of semen changes: group I included 48 patients with increase of TPMSC>12.5 million, group II comprised 20 patients with mild increase in TPMSC (0.1 - 12.5 million) and the III group comprised patients without any effect (TPMSC did not change, or became less than preoperative one) after varicocelectomy. The initial clinical characteristics of patients in the groups were compared. Results. A significant effect was observed in 52% of cases (n=48), a mild favorable effect in 21% (n=20), and no effect in 27% (n=25). Spontaneous pregnancy rates (in 1 year after varicocele repair) were higher in patients of group I than that of groups II and III: 46%, 10% and 12%, respectively (p<0.05). The initial clinical characteristics between groups were comparable (p>0.05). In group I, the initial semen analysis parameters were significantly better than in group II and worse than in group III: the median and 25% -75% of the quartiles for TPMSC were 15 (1-44), 0 (0-8) and 54 (19-100) million, respectively (for all p<0.001). According to discriminant analysis significant predictors of pregnancy after varicocelectomy were an increase of TPMSC, male age and the initial total sperm motility. The predictive accuracy of the prognostic model with these three predictors was 84%, specificity was 87%, and sensitivity was 76%. Conclusions. The odds of fertility recovery after varicocelectomy has a U-shaped relationship: it is higher in patients with moderate semen quality impairment and it decreases in patients with initially low, and, conversely, high sperm count and motility. An increase in TPMSC by 12.5 million or more is a highly significant indicator of fertility recovery, because in this case the odds of spontaneous pregnancy can reach 50%. Predictors of fertility recovery after varicocelectomy are an increase of TPMSC, male age and the preoperative total motility.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

A. B Shomarufov

Lomonosov Moscow State University; Republican Specialized Scientific-Practical Medical Center of Urology

Email: doctor.shomarufov@gmail.com
urologist, PhD student, Department of Urology and Andrology, Faculty of Fundamental Medicine Moscow, Russia

V. A Bozhedomov

Lomonosov Moscow State University

Email: vbojedomov@mail.ru
Professor, Department of Urology and Andrology, Faculty of Fundamental Medicine, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Head of the “Men’s Health” Clinic, University Clinic of Lomonosov Moscow State University, leading researcher at the National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology named after V.I. Kulakov, Ministry of Health of Russia Moscow, Russia

F. A Akilov

Republican Specialized Scientific-Practical Medical Center of Urology

Email: akilovmd@gmail.com
DSc, professor, Head of the Department of Urology Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Sh. T Mukhtarov

Republican Specialized Scientific-Practical Medical Center of Urology

Email: msht_doc@mail.ru
DSc, Director of RSSPMCU, professor, Department of Urology Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Sh. Sh Shavakhabov

Republican Specialized Scientific-Practical Medical Center of Urology

PhD, Vice-Director of RSSPMCU for science Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Sh. A Abbosov

Lomonosov Moscow State University; Republican Specialized Scientific-Practical Medical Center of Urology

Email: shuhrat0770@mail.ru
urologist, PhD student, Department of Urology and Andro-logy, Faculty of Fundamental Medicine Moscow, Russia

A. A Kamalov

Lomonosov Moscow State University

Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor, DSc, Head of the Department of Urology and Andrology, Faculty of Fundamental Medicine Moscow, Russia

References

  1. Di Bisceglie C., Fornengo R., Grosso M., Gazzera C., Mancini A., Andriani B., et al. Follow-up of varicocele treated with percutaneous retrograde sclerotherapy: technical, clinical and seminal aspects. J Endocrinol Invest. 2003;26(11):1059-1064.
  2. Dubin J.M., Greer A.B., Kohn T.P., et al. Men with severe oligospermia appear to benefit from varicocele repair: A cost-effectiveness analysis of assisted reproductive technology. Urology. 2018;111:99-103.
  3. Kohn T.P., Kohn J.R., Pastuszak A.W. Varicocelectomy before assisted reproductive technology: are outcomes improved? Fertil Steril. 2017;108:385-391.
  4. Kirby E.W., Wiener L.E., Rajanahally S., et al. Undergoing varicocele repair before assisted reproduction improves pregnancy rate and live birth rate in azoospermic and oligospermic men with a varicocele: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:1338-1343.
  5. Clarke B.G. Incidence of varicocele in normal men and among men of different ages. JAMA. 1966;198:1121-1122.
  6. Clavijo R.I., Carrasquillo R., Ramasamy R. Varicoceles: prevalence and pathogenesis in adult men. Fertility and Sterility. 2017;108:364-369.
  7. Damsgaard J., Joensen U.N., Carlsen E, et al. Varicocele Is Associated with Impaired Semen Quality and Reproductive Hormone Levels: A Study of 7035 Healthy Young Men from Six European Countries. European Urology. 2016;70:1019-1029.
  8. Jarow J.P., Sharlip I.D., Belker A.M., et al. Best practice policies for male infertility. J Urol 2002;167:2138-2144.
  9. Cayan S, Erdemir F., Ozbey I., et al. Can varicocelectomy significantly change the way couples use assisted reproductive technologies? J Urol 2002;167:1749-1752.
  10. Samplaski M., Lo K., Grober E. et al. Varicocelectomy to “upgrade” semen quality to allow couples to use less invasive forms of assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2017; 108: 609-612.
  11. Thirumavalavan N., Scovell J.M., Balasubramanian A. et al. The Impact of Microsurgical Repair of Subclinical and Clinical Varicoceles on Total Motile Sperm Count: Is There a Difference? Urology. 2018 Oct; 120: 109-113.
  12. Rhemrev J.P., et al. The postwash total progressively motile sperm cell count is a reliable predictor of total fertilization failure during in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril. 2001;76(5):884-891.
  13. Lemmens L., Kos S., Beijer C. et al. Predictive value of sperm morphology and progressively motile sperm count for pregnancy outcomes in intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 2016 Jun;105(6):1462-1468.
  14. A.-Meguid T.A., Al-Sayyad A., Tayib A. et al. Does varicocele repair improve male infertility? An evidence-based perspective from a randomized, controlled trial. European Urology, 2011; 59: 455-461.
  15. Almekaty K., Zahran M.H., Zoeir A. et al. The role of artery-preserving varicocelectomy in subfertile men with severe oligozoospermia: a randomized controlled study. Andrology. 2019 Mar;7(2):193-198.
  16. Samplaski, M. Kattan Ch.Yu.,M., Grober K.Lo.E., Zini A., Lau S., B.Sc. Keith A. Jarvi M.D. Nomograms for predicting changes in semen parameters in infertile men after varicocele repair. Fertility and Sterility, V. 102, Issue 1, July 2014. Р. 68-74.
  17. Zhang J.W., Xu Q.Q., Kuang Y.L. et al. Predictors for spontaneous pregnancy after microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy: a prospective cohort study. Int Urol Nephrol. 2017 Jun;49(6):955-960.
  18. World Health Organization. WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and processing of human semen. 5 th edition. Geneva: WHO Press, 2010.
  19. World Health Organization. WHO Manual for the Standardized Investigation, Diagnosis and Management of the Infertile Male. Cambridge University. Press: Cambridge, 2000.
  20. Nieschlag E., Behre H.M. and Nieschlag S. (eds). Male reproductive health and dysfunction, In: Male reproductive health and dysfunction. 2010, Springer Verlag: Berlin.
  21. Ding H., Tian J., Du W. et al. Open non-microsurgical, laparoscopic or open microsurgical varicocelectomy for male infertility: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BJU Int. 2012; 110(10): 1536-1542.
  22. Pagani R.L., Ohlander S.J., Niederberger C.S. Microsurgical varicocele ligation: surgical methodology and associated outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2019 Mar;111(3):415-419.
  23. Самойлов А.С., Мартов А.Г., Кызласов П.С. и соавт. Сравнительная характеристика эффективности хирургического лечения варикоцеле у спортсменов разными методами: операции Мармара и лапароскопического клипирования яичковой вены. Урология. 2016;6:44-46.
  24. Гамидов С.И., Овчинников Р.И., Попова А.Ю. и соавт. Тактика ведения бесплодных мужчин при варикоцеле: сравнительный анализ различных методов лечения. Акушерство и гинекология. 2013;2:77-83.
  25. Божедомов В.А., Шомаруфов А.Б., Божедомова Г.Е. и др. Варикоцеле и репродуктивная функция: возможности коррекции патозооспермии (данные проспективного сравнительного исследования). Урология. 2021;2:62-68.
  26. Tan O., Ha T., Carr B.R., Nakonezny P, Doody K.M., Doody K.J. Predictive value of postwashed total progressively motile sperm count using CASA estimates in 6871 non-donor intrauterine insemination cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31(9):1147-1153.
  27. Stigler S.M. Regression towards the mean, historically considered. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. 1997;6(2):103-114.
  28. Keel B.A. Within- and between-subject variation in semen parameters in infertile men and normal semen donors. Fertility and Sterility. 2006;85(1):128-134.
  29. Palmisano F., Moreno-Mendoza D., Ievoli R. et al. Clinical factors affecting semen improvement after microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy: which subfertile patients benefit from surgery? Ther Adv Urol. 2019;11:1756287219887656.
  30. Kimura M., Nagao K., Tai T. et al. Age is a significant predictor of early and late improvement in semen parameters after microsurgical varicocele repair. Andrologia. 2017;49(3).
  31. Cayan S. Sahin E. Akbay. Paternity Rates and Time to Conception in Adolescents with Varicocele Undergoing Microsurgical Varicocele Repair vs Observation Only: A Single Institution Experience with 408 Patients. J Urol. 2017l;198(1):195-201

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies