Marsman J W, Brand R, Schats R, Bernardus R E
Department of Radiology, Gooi-Noord Hospital, Blaricum, The Netherlands.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1995 Jun;60(2):165-9. doi: 10.1016/0028-2243(95)02099-e.
The purpose of the study was to establish whether it is useful to make a distinction between clinical and subclinical varicoceles with a view to deciding for treatment or not. Therefore, we compared our results of treatment of clinical vs. subclinical varicoceles.
The changes of semen parameters and the occurrence of pregnancies in 40 infertile men treated for clinical varicocele were compared with those in 46 infertile men treated for subclinical varicocele. The significance of individual semen changes was analysed by paired t-test in both groups and the results of both groups were compared by analysis of covariance. The pregnancy rates were calculated and the life table curves of pregnancy of both groups were compared.
There were statistically significant increments in sperm density, motility and morphology both after treatment of clinical and subclinical varicoceles, and these increments did not differ significantly between both groups. The cumulative pregnancy rates after a mean follow-up period of 6.6 years amounted to 42.5% for clinical varicoceles and to 39.1% for subclinical varicoceles and the life table curves of pregnancy ran a rather similar course in both groups.
We conclude that there is no reason to emphasize the palpatory findings in infertile men with varicocele.
