Lund L, Larsen S B
Department of Urology, Skejby University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Br J Urol. 1998 Nov;82(5):682-6. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1998.00850.x.
To evaluate semen quality and fecundity in a group of men with initially untreated varicocele testis, in comparison with control subjects.
PATIENTS, SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In a prospective, longitudinal study, 77 men (39 with varicocele and 38 control subjects) were evaluated in 1989 and re-investigated after 8 years. Fifty-seven men (29 with varicocele, 28 controls) were available for evaluation and they all completed a questionnaire. Semen from a total of 46 men (24 with varicocele) was compared with findings in 22 men from the control group.
There was a decline in sperm count in the control group from 80 x 10(6)/mL to 55 x 10(6)/mL over the 8-year period, but nearly no change in the sperm count in the men with varicocele. The withdrawal rate from each group was the same and included both men with and without reduced semen quality. There were no differences between the groups in sperm motility values (straight-line velocity, curvilinear velocity) evaluated using computer-assisted semen analysis. Paternity was achieved by 10 of 14 men in the varicocele group, compared with 14 of 16 in the control group.
There was no evidence that varicocelectomy might benefit patients, because the sperm concentration did not decline among men with varicocele over time. Computer-assisted semen analysis provided a good assessment of various sperm motility characteristics and we recommend evaluation using such objective methods, to allow comparison among studies
与对照组相比,评估一组初诊未治疗的精索静脉曲张患者的精液质量和生育力。
患者、研究对象与方法:在一项前瞻性纵向研究中,1989年对77名男性(39名精索静脉曲张患者和38名对照者)进行了评估,并在8年后再次进行调查。57名男性(29名精索静脉曲张患者,28名对照者)可供评估,他们均完成了一份问卷。将总共46名男性(24名精索静脉曲张患者)的精液与对照组22名男性的检查结果进行比较。
在8年期间,对照组的精子计数从80×10⁶/mL降至55×10⁶/mL,但精索静脉曲张患者的精子计数几乎没有变化。每组的退出率相同,包括精液质量降低和未降低的男性。使用计算机辅助精液分析评估的精子活力值(直线速度、曲线速度)在两组之间没有差异。精索静脉曲张组14名男性中有10名成功受孕,对照组16名男性中有14名成功受孕。
没有证据表明精索静脉曲张切除术可能使患者受益,因为精索静脉曲张患者的精子浓度并未随时间下降。计算机辅助精液分析对各种精子活力特征提供了良好的评估,我们建议使用这种客观方法进行评估,以便不同研究之间进行比较。