









































Pa
ge

 
1



Pa
ge

 
12

1

American Journal of  Medical 
Science and Innovation (AJMSI) 

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of  Surgical Versus Non-Surgical Management for 
Varicocele: Comparative Evaluation of  Fertility Outcomes and Complication Rates

Ahmed El Shinnwai1*

Volume 3 Issue 2, Year 2024
ISSN: 2836-8509 (Online)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajmsi.v3i2.3694
https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmsi

Article Information ABSTRACT

Received: August 20, 2024
Accepted: September 27, 2024
Published: November 14, 2024

Varicocele is a condition causing abnormal dilatation of  the pampiniform plexus in the scro-
tum, affecting spermatogenesis, testicular volume, semen parameters, fertilization, implanta-
tion, and embryonic outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare 
surgical and non-surgical management of  Varicocele, evaluating fertility outcomes and com-
plication rates, synthesizing clinical studies for effectiveness and safety. The methodology 
includes the systematic review of  26 studies and a meta-analysis of  16 studies, followed by 
the search strategy, data extraction, inclusion and exclusion criteria, data analysis, and data 
extraction strategy of  the included selected studies. For the criteria of  study selection, PRIS-
MA chart has been created to review the selection process of  included studies. Research 
indicates that undergoing surgery to cure varicocele enhances the likelihood of  conception, 
sperm quality, live birth rates, and success of  sperm retrieval. Varicocele embolization is 
one non-surgical treatment that provides rapid pain relief, minimum invasiveness, and a 
quicker recovery. Antioxidants can enhance sperm parameters and conception rates when 
combined with other treatments. Reproductive outcomes are improved by varicocele repair, 
which includes surgical and angiographic embolization. This procedure lowers sperm DNA 
fragmentation. For males with varicocele, surgery is still the major way to improve quality of  
life. It was concluded that Varicoceleectomy is the primary fertility treatment for men with 
varicocele, offering significant benefits in pregnancy rates, sperm parameters, and long-term 
results, while non-surgical approaches offer faster recovery and minimal invasiveness.

Keywords
Conception, Infertility, Meta-
Analysis, Pregnancy, Treatment, 
Varicocele

1 Barts Health NHS Trust, 8003144, London, UK
* Corresponding author’s e-mail: shinnwai@outlook.com

INTRODUCTION
Varicocele, a condition characterized by abnormal 
dilatation or tortuosity of  the pampiniform plexus in 
the scrotum, affects 15% of  men in general, 35% of  
men who are infertile first, and 80% of  men who are 
infertile again. The pathogenesis is multifactorial, with 
incompetent venous valves and anatomic variations 
in venous drainage between the left and right internal 
spermatic veins leading to venous reflux and elevated 
hydrostatic pressure. Physical activity in adolescence can 
cause Varicocele development, and physical activity in 
later life can exacerbate the illness (Alsaikhan et al., 2016).
Anatomical variables including a longer left spermatic vein, 
the absence of  a valve, the “nutcracker phenomenon”, 
increased blood flow and pressure, and developmental 
factors like puberty and adolescence all have an impact 
on the development of  Varicocele. Tobaccos age, renal 
arteriovenous malformations, deep vein thrombosis, and 
pampiniform plexus thrombosis are further uncommon 
causes (Su et al., 2021).
Spermatogenesis, testicular volume, semen parameters, 
fertilization, implantation, and embryonic outcomes are 
all adversely affected by Varicocele (Hassanin et al., 2018). 
Although Varicocele are common in sub-fertile males, 
there is ongoing discussion on their effects on live birth 
rates and fertility treatments. The possible impacts on 
sperm DNA fragmentation and semen parameters are of  
concern. Treatment is an intrusive, costly procedure with 
some side effects, but it may increase semen parameters, 
fertility, and pregnancy rates (Maheshwari et al., 2022).

Oxidative stress is a major element in the difficult 
issue of  Varicocele-induced fertility. The usual course 
of  treatment is still microsurgical Varicoceleectomy; 
antioxidant supplements plus Varicoceleectomy may 
enhance the success of  pregnancy outcomes (Su et al., 
2021). Varicocele has been linked to an elevated risk of  
specific health issues. Notably, men with asymptomatic 
Varicocele did not exhibit an increased risk of  heart 
disease, diabetes, or hyperlipidemia post-diagnosis. In 
contrast, individuals with symptomatic Varicocele were 
found to have a greater likelihood of  developing these 
conditions (Wang et al., 2018).

Rationale for comparing surgical and non-surgical 
management options
Blocking the vein to reroute blood flow is the surgical 
treatment for Varicocele. Open surgery or minimal 
invasive techniques such as laparoscopic or microscopic 
Varicoceleectomy are available
options. In males with palpable Varicocele and low-
quality sperm, Varicocele repair can increase fertility and 
pregnancy rates by 13-51%.
While non-surgical method called Varicocele embolization 
can be used to treat Varicocele without requiring open 
surgery. It has benefits including a quicker recovery 
period, local anesthetic, a lower chance of  complications, 
and a quicker return to normal activities. 
The objective of  this present systematic review and meta-
analysis is to comprehensively evaluate and compare the 
fertility outcomes and complication rates associated with 



Pa
ge

 
12

2

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmsi

Am. J. Med. Sci. Innov. 3(2) 121-130, 2024

surgical and non-surgical management of  Varicocele. This 
review aimed to synthesize existing evidence from clinical 
studies to provide a robust analysis of  the effectiveness 
and safety of  these management strategies in improving 
fertility outcomes among patients with Varicocele.

MATERIALS & METHODS
Search Strategy & Key Words
The review was carried by using the current research 
and review publications available in Google Scholar, 
PubMed, NCBI, Scopus, Web of  Science, Medscape, 
and Springer based on the evaluation and comparative 
analysis of  fertility outcomes rates associated with the 
surgical and non-surgical management of  varicocele. 
From the beginning January to the April 2024, a 
thorough search of  the literature on the was done to 
obtain the comprehensive results by using the keywords 
including “Surgical treatment of  Varicocele”, “Varicocele 
embolization”, “Varicocele effects fertility”, “Varicocele 
impacts sperm viability”, and “Varicocele embolization 
improves fertile”.
The given criteria were required for eligibility; i) 
Determination of  fertility rates improved after either 
surgical or non-surgical treatment of  varicocele; ii) 
Comparison of  effectiveness resulted from surgical 
and non-surgical varicocele treatment; iii) Sperms 
morphological improvement after embolization) studies 
from randomized control trials; iv) Model dimensions of  
less than 10 participants; v) English morphological; and 
vi) Availability of  complete text. PRISMA guidelines have 
been followed as a standard for writing systematic and 
meta-analyses.
Initially, a comprehensive search yielded a total of  4635 
articles (databases and register included). To refine the 
research and focus on the relevant literature, specific 
filters were applied, such as year of  publication, the field 
of  study, article type and studies related to Varicocele 
effective management. The collection of  data approach 
used precise combinations
and variants of  search terms such as “Varicocele”; 
“Fertility Outcomes”; “Complication rates”; “Infertility in 
Varicocele”; and “Meta-analyses”. To ensure an in-depth 
search, terms such as “Varicocele Pathophysiology”; 
“Varicoceleectomy”; and “Pregnancy rates”; were 
included. The final dataset included 456 records for 
additional analysis and inclusion in the systematic review 
and meta-analysis, which included the most relevant and 
recent studies.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
In addition to abstracts focused on relevance, the 
following inclusion and exclusion criteria were used as a 
second-hand filter on titles. We only considered research 
that have been submitted to and accepted by peer-
reviewed journals, even though we searched the Grey 
literature. The inclusion criteria were established based 
on Cochrane recommendations.

- Randomized, non-randomized control trials and 
cohort studies were included for comparing surgical and 
non-surgical management of  varicocele. 

- Include studies involving adult male patients diagnosed 
with varicocele. Studies were included evaluating any 
surgical intervention for varicocele. 

- Studies included data on post-operative complications 
related to surgical interventions (e.g., infections, 
hematoma, testicular atrophy) and complications 
associated with non-surgical management.

- Studies in English language were included to ensure 
the comprehensive coverage.

- Abstracts were also considered for inclusion into this 
review because contrary to the typical recommendations 
of  the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews 
and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol, experience in 
the beneficial use of  abstracts allows for their inclusion 
for systematic review, provided that the relevant data 
(e.g., total sample population, group sample sizes, and 
treatment outcomes) needed for the analysis are indicated 
in the abstract.

Exclusion Criteria
- Studies published in languages other than English 

were excluded due to potential languages barriers that 
could impact data interpretation and inclusion. 

- Studies without comparative analysis between 
surgical and non-surgical management for varicocele 
were excluded, including those solely investigating 
medical management without a comparison to surgical 
interventions. 

- Studies involving animals or non-human subjects 
were excluded due to potential limitations in translating 
their outcomes directly to human contexts.

- Studies lacking a comparative design, such as case 
reports, case series or those without a control group, were 
excluded from the analysis.

- Studies that do not report relevant outcomes such 
as fertility parameters (e.g., sperm quality, pregnancy 
rates) and complications rates (e.g., recurrence rates, 
postoperative complications) were excluded from the 
analysis.

Data Extraction
This review focuses on the comparative evaluation of  
fertility outcomes after the surgical and non-surgical 
treatment of  Varicocele in humans, specifically between 
the age of  20 to 50 years of  married man. A comprehensive 
search of  4565 articles was conducted from February 
2018 to March 2024, using terms like “Surgical treatment 
of  Varicocele”, “Varicocele embolization”, “Varicocele 
effects fertility”, “ Varicocele impacts sperm viability” and 
“ Varicocele embolization improves fertile”. Abstracts 
were independently evaluated and scrutinized the entire 
text for eligibility. PRISMA guidelines were followed for 
systematic analysis and meta-analysis. The final dataset 
included 54 records for further analysis, including the 
most relevant and recent studies.



Pa
ge

 
12

3

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmsi

Am. J. Med. Sci. Innov. 3(2) 121-130, 2024

The identification of  studies involves multiple stages, 
with the final selection based on specific criteria. The 
initial identification process involves removing duplicate 
records, screening 3572 records, excluding 3098 records, 
and assessing 474 full-text articles for eligibility. Out of  
these 432 records were excluded as they were not related 
to fertility rate comparative analysis.
The remaining 42 records are for qualitative analysis. 
Quantitative analysis (meta-analysis) includes 14 studies, 
and the review includes 28 selected studies. The total 
number of  selected studies was determined by meeting 
inclusion criteria and passing through the screening, full-
text assessment, and quantitative analysis stages, leading 
to the final selection of  relevant and suitable studies for 
the review.

Data Analysis
Our preliminary search included articles from three 
previously chosen credentials to validate our search 
method and ensure these publications were retrieved and 
selected.
The observational research was assessed using the ROB 
criteria, and the quality of  the included studies was 
assessed using the “Quality Assessment of  Diagnostic 
Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)” questionnaire, which was 
utilized to conduct a thorough risk of  bias evaluation. 
Four main areas were examined in the evaluation: flow 
and timing, reference standard, index test, and patient 
selection.

All estimates and 95% certainty intervals were used to 
create a forest plot and funnel plot. The instantaneous 
estimations of  disorientation existence were calculated 
using random-effect models due to the anticipated 
variability in the available datasets. To check for 
heterogeneity, forest plots were analyzed quantitatively 
and qualitatively.

Risk of  Bias Assessment 
The study discusses the risk of  bias associated with 
the methodology of  using surgical and non-surgical 
management of  Varicocele for predicting comparative 
outcomes of  fertility in male patients:

- Researchers acknowledge that the method has 
shortcomings, particularly in estimating the inception 
level of  the fertility rate for predicting outcomes.

- To maximize predictive efficacy and to mitigate the 
rate biasness in the treatment, systematic differences 
between the groups being compared (surgical vs. non-
surgical management) were assessed. 

- These factors should be considered and incorporated 
into logistic regression models to mitigate bias associated 
with their strong correlation with poor outcomes.

- The assessment of  biomarkers at various time 
points and the measurement of  numerous outcomes can 
exacerbate the risk of  bias.

- In this review, the assessment of  potential biases 
were critical components of  the methodology. Quality 
Assessment of  Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) is 

Figure 1: Prisma flow chart



Pa
ge

 
12

4

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmsi

Am. J. Med. Sci. Innov. 3(2) 121-130, 2024

a diagnostic test accuracy tool that can evaluate the risk of  
bias in comparative accuracy studies (Cochrane methods 
of  QUADAS-C Tool, 2022). Reviewers independently 
assessed the Risk of  Bias using the modified QUADAS 
questionnaire. Each study was evaluated on four critical 
domains: “Patient Selection, Index Test, Reference 
Standard, and Flow and Timing”.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Varicocele is a major cause of  male infertility, affecting 
15% of  the general male population and 35% of  men with 
infertility. Treatment aims to enhance sperm parameters 
and fertility outcomes, with decisions based on factors 
like Varicocele size, fertility goals, and symptoms. Several 
studies suggest that surgical treatment, particularly 
microsurgical Varicoceleectomy, has the highest rate of  
improvement in sperm parameters and pregnancy rates. 

Open surgical repair is recommended, but risks include 
complications like hydrocele, Varicocele recurrence, 
infection, and chronic testicular pain. Non-surgical 
management, such as dietary supplements, may also be 
considered (Ouanes et al., 2022; Persad et al., 2021).

Study Selection
A concise systematic review and meta-analysis were 
performed to identify and evaluate pertinent studies 
regarding the comparative management and fertility 
outcomes of  patients with Varicocele who underwent 
surgical and non-surgical treatments. 
To identify all relevant studies published in the past 10 
years, an exhausted search of  electronic databases was 
carried out. The process for selecting precise and relevant 
studies to access biomarker accuracy is depicted in Figure 
2.

Figure 2: Flow Chart of  Selected Studies for Meta-Analysis

The flow chart depicts the study selection process for 
the meta-analysis. A total of  4286 records were identified 
through database searching, and an additional 238 
records extracted through other sources. After removing 
duplicates (952), a total of  3,572 records underwent 
screening. Among these, 3098 records were excluded, 
leaving 474 full-text articles for eligibility assessment. 
Ultimately, 432 full-text articles were excluded, resulting 
in 28 articles included in systematic review. Among 
these, 14 papers were also part of  the meta-analysis. 
The comparative analysis of  fertility rate outcomes was 
conducted across surgical and non-surgical management 
approaches. 

Characteristics of  Included Studies
Among 16 randomized controlled trials, 11 studies 
documented favorable fertility outcomes, while a smaller 
subset 5 studies investigated non-surgical treatments, 
showing less positive outcomes for Varicocele patients 
or detailing Varicocele treatment approaches. The study 
participants were adults with ages spanning from 20 to 
70 years on average. Patients cited reasons for evaluating 
Varicocele treatments included overcoming infertility 
and increasing pregnancy rates, attributing successful 
outcomes to these interventions.



Pa
ge

 
12

5

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmsi

Am. J. Med. Sci. Innov. 3(2) 121-130, 2024

Risk of  Bias Assessment Results
In the meta analysis, assessing potential biases using 
the modified QUADAS questionnaire yielded favorable 
results. Each study underwent thorough scrutiny across 
four crucial domains including patient selection, index 
test, reference standard, flow and timings by impartial 
reviewers. This rigorous evaluation process indicated 
minimal risk of  bias in most studies, highlighting 
strong methodology in assessing both surgical and non-
surgical management for predicting fertility outcomes in 
varicocele patients. Utilizing data dependent threshold 
calculation and logistic regression models, researchers 
effectively demonstrated the significant benefits of  
Varicoceleectomy in improving sperm quality and 
morphology, reducing infertility complications. These 
findings underscore the reliability and validity of  the 
meta-analysis in evaluating Varicoceleectomy efficacy for 

Varicocele effected patients.

Comparison of  the Efficacy of  Surgical and Non-
Surgical Management of  Varicocele
A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the treatment 
efficacy for Varicocele associated infertility. Forest plots 
were generated to provide a visual summary finddings 
from two comparative studies. These plots display 
the Odds Ratios (OR) and their corresponding 95% 
confidence intervals (Cl) for each study, alongside the 
pooled OR and Cl for both studies. The horizontal line 
at OR=1.0 represents no association between treatment 
type and fertility rates. An OR greater than 1.0 suggests 
a positive association, while OR less than 1.0 indicates 
a negative association. The width of  the confidence 
interval reflects the precision of  the estimate, with wider 
intervals lower precision, as illustrated in Table 1.  

Table 1: Forest Plot Of  Selected Studies Indicating Surgical Management Outcomes 
Studies Odd Ratio Lower Confidence level Upper confidence Level  
(Huang et al., 2014) 0.70 0.76 0.92
(Abdel-Meguid et al., 2011) 3.04 1.84 5.98
(Fallara et al., 2023) 1.29 1.00 1.65
(Marmar et al., 2007) 2.87 1.33 6.2
(Kim et al., 2013) 1.9 0.77 4.66
(Baazeem et al., 2011) 2.23 0.86 5.78
(Birowo et al., 2020) 1.82 1.37 2.41
(Will et al., 2011) 1.1 0.73 1.68
(Wang et al., 2015) 2.9 1.92 19.6
(Kirby et al., 2016) 1.76 1.267 2.284
(Tiseo et al., 2016) 2.87 1.33 6.02



Pa
ge

 
12

6

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmsi

Am. J. Med. Sci. Innov. 3(2) 121-130, 2024

Analysis of  Surgical Management to Compare 
Improved Fertility Outcomes
The provided studies offer compelling evidence that 
surgical Varicocele treatment, known as Varicoceleectomy 
can significantly improve fertility outcomes in men with 
varicocele and abnormal semen parameters. (Abdel-
Meguid et al., 2011; Fallara et al., 2023; Huang et al., 2014) 
demonstrated improved pregnancy rates for couples 
where the male partner undergoes varicocele repair. Odds 
ratio range from 1.29 to 3.04, indicating a 29% to 304% 
increase in pregnancy.
Varicoceleectomy improves sperm concentration, motility 
and morphology. This improvement was observed in 
men with severe conditions like azoospermia (no sperm 
in semen), while showed a69% high success rate of  
surgical retrieval after varicocele treatment for use in IVF 
(Abdel-Meguid et al., 2011; Baazeem et al., 2011; Huang 
et al., 2014).
(Abdel-Meguid et al., 2011; Birowo et al., 2020) reported a 
significant increase in live birth rates following varicocele 
repair, with odds ratio up to 2.80, translating to a 180% 
higher chance of  live birth. Durable improvement 

(microsurgical Varicoceleectomy) offers a long lasting 
solution, showed sustained improvement in semen 
parameters for up to 12 months’ post-surgery.
It is important to note that the most significant benefits 
were seen in men with clinically detectable varicocele 
and abnormal semen analysis. (Baazeem et al., 2011; 
Kim et al., 2013; Tiseo et al., 2016) showed that men with 
subclinical varicocele or normal semen parameters may 
not experience the same level of  improvement.
Preoperative factors including age and baseline sperm 
density can influence the success of  Varicoceleectomy, 
(Huang et al., 2014) suggest that younger patients and 
those with higher baseline sperm density tend to have 
better outcomes.
Suggest that microsurgical approaches like inguinal or 
sub inguinal may offer advantages over traditional open 
surgery. These techniques are associated with higher 
pregnancy rates, improved sperm parameters and lower 
complication risks. However patient selection and surgical 
technique are crucial factors for optimal outcomes (Kirby 
et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2015).  

Table 2: Forest Plot Of  Selected Studies Indicating Non-Surgical Management Outcomes
Studies Odd Ratio Upper Confidence Level Lower Confidence Level 
(Pyrgidis et al., 2021) 2.28 12.09 6.41
(Agarwal et al., 2023) 2.97 4.63 1.19
(Arhin et al., 2021) 90.21 13.69 6.6
(Ghanem et al., 2010) 3.76 13.64 1.03
(Busetto et al., 2024) 2 4.14 0.97

Analysis of  Non-Surgical Management to Compare 
Improved Fertility Outcomes
The analysis of  the studies regarding non-surgical 
management of  varicocele for improving fertility 
outcomes highlights several findings. (Pyrgidis et al., 

2021) suggest that antioxidant supplementation does not 
significantly improve pregnancy rates or semen parameters 
in patients with varicocele associated infertility, unless 
previous screening for oxidative stress was conducted. 



Pa
ge

 
12

7

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmsi

Am. J. Med. Sci. Innov. 3(2) 121-130, 2024

Table 3: Comparative Evaluation Of  Surgical And Non-Surgical Management Of  Varicocele To Express Fertility 
Outcomes- Pooled Studies 
Studies Odd Ratio Lower Confidence level Upper confidence Level  
(Huang et al., 2014) 0.7 0.92 0.76
(Abdel-Meguid et al., 2011) 3.04 5.98 1.84
(Fallara et al., 2023) 1.29 1.65 1
(Marmar et al., 2007) 2.87 6.2 1.33
(Kim et al., 2013) 1.9 4.66 0.77
(Baazeem et al., 2011) 2.23 5.78 0.86
(Birowo et al., 2020) 1.82 2.41 1.37
(Will et al., 2011) 1.1 1.68 0.73
(Wang et al., 2015) 2.9 19.6 1.92
(Kirby et al., 2016) 1.76 2.284 1.267
(Tiseo et al., 2016) 2.87 6.02 1.33
(Pyrgidis et al., 2021) 2.28 12.09 6.41
(Agarwal et al., 2023) 2.97 4.63 1.19
(Arhin et al., 2021) 90.21 13.69 6.6
(Ghanem et al., 2010) 3.76 13.64 1.03
(Busetto et al., 2024) 2 4.14 0.97



Pa
ge

 
12

8

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmsi

Am. J. Med. Sci. Innov. 3(2) 121-130, 2024

While (Agarwal et al., 2023) acknowledged that the efficacy 
of  antioxidant treatments in improving pregnancy rates, 
although the evidence quality was noted to be low. (Arhin 
et al., 2021) stated that some antioxidant treatment 
including L-carnitine + Acetyl-carnitine may improve 
sperm outcomes in sub fertile patients, combinations 
with other antioxidants were not effective. This suggests 
variability in the effectiveness of  different antioxidant 
combinations.
Ghanem’s randomized controlled trial provided results 
for a combination treatment of  Clomiphene sitrate and 
vitamin E, showing a significant higher pregnancy rate 
and improved sperm parameters in cases of  idiopathic 
oligoasthenoozospermia (Ghanem et al., 2010). 
(Busetto et al., 2024) indicates a statistically significant 
increase in sperm concentration with antioxidant 
treatment compared to placebo, supporting the potential 
benefits of  antioxidants in improving fertility outcomes. 
However, younger age and lower BMI are associated 
with positive outcomes, while varicocele itself  does not 
significantly impact sperm concentration values. 

Comparative Evaluation of  Surgical and Non-
Surgical Approaches in Managing Varicocele for 
Enhanced Fertility Outcomes –Pooled Studies 
Studies comparing surgical and non-surgical management 
of  varicocele have shown that surgical treatment 
significantly improves pregnancy rates, sperm parameters, 
live birth rates, and success of  sperm retrieval. It also 
offers long-lasting improvements in semen quality, 
particularly in men with azoospermia.
Non-surgical treatment, such as varicocele embolization, 
offers faster recovery, minimal invasiveness, and 
immediate pain relief. It is performed under local 
anesthesia, reducing risks and costs associated with 
surgery. It also offers effective pain relief  and a lower 
recurrence rate compared to surgery.
Antioxidant supplementation alone does not significantly 
improve pregnancy rates or semen parameters in 
varicocele-associated infertility. However, some studies 
suggest combining antioxidants with other treatments like 
clomiphene citrate and vitamin E, leading to improved 
pregnancy rates and sperm parameters in specific cases.
According to guidelines from the European Association 
of  Urology (EAU) and the American Society for 
Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), varicocele correction, 
including surgical and angiographic embolization, is 
beneficial for lowering sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) 
and increasing reproductive results (Busetto et al., 2022; 
Garg & Kumar, 2016).
Conclusively, surgical intervention such as 
Varicoceleectomy continues to be the principal means 
of  enhancing the quality of  life for sperm parameters, 
long-term outcomes, and pregnancy rates in men with 
varicocele. Varicocele embolization is one of  the non-
surgical methods that offers less invasiveness and a 
quicker rate of  recovery. 

Discussion
Varicocele, a prevalent condition affecting men, especially 
those with infertility, is caused by venous reflux and 
elevated hydrostatic pressure, with its impact on fertility 
outcomes being a significant concern.
Varicoceleectomy, a surgical procedure, restricts veins to 
redirect blood flow, while non-surgical techniques like 
Varicocele embolization offer reduced complications 
and faster recovery, requiring comparison to understand 
their effectiveness in managing problems and improving 
reproductive outcomes.
The study used a systematic approach to identify 
studies comparing surgical and non-surgical varicocele 
management, focusing on fertility rate improvements, 
effectiveness, randomized controlled trials, and complete 
English texts.
The meta-analysis screened randomized controlled trials 
and cohort studies involving adult male patients with 
varicocele, evaluating management strategies. Forest 
plots were used to visually summarize findings, while a 
modified QUADAS questionnaire was used for risk of  
bias assessment. This critical evaluation minimized bias 
and enhanced the reliability of  the results.
Surgical Varicocele treatment, such as Varicoceleectomy, 
has been shown to significantly improve fertility outcomes 
in men with varicocele and abnormal semen parameters. 
Studies have shown improved pregnancy rates, sperm 
concentration, motility, and morphology in couples where 
the male partner undergoes varicocele repair (Persad et al., 
2021). This improvement is observed in men with severe 
conditions like azoospermia and has a high success rate 
of  surgical retrieval for use in IVF (Zengerling, 2022).
Microsurgical Varicoceleectomy offers a long-lasting 
solution, showing sustained improvement in semen 
parameters for up to 12 months’ post-surgery. However, 
the most significant benefits were seen in men with clinically 
detectable varicocele and abnormal semen analysis. 
Preoperative factors such as age and baseline sperm 
density can influence the success of  Varicoceleectomy 
(Phan et al., 2021). Microsurgical approaches like inguinal 
or sub inguinal may offer advantages over traditional 
open surgery, but patient selection and surgical technique 
are crucial factors for optimal outcomes.
Non-surgical management of  varicocele for improving 
fertility outcomes has also been studied. Studies suggest 
that antioxidant supplementation does not significantly 
improve pregnancy rates or semen parameters in patients 
with varicocele-associated infertility, unless previous 
screening for oxidative stress was conducted (Pyrgidis 
et al., 2021). Non-surgical treatments like varicocele 
embolization offer faster recovery, minimal invasiveness, 
and immediate pain relief. Antioxidant supplementation 
alone does not significantly improve pregnancy rates 
or semen parameters in varicocele-associated infertility 
(Inci & Gunay, 2013). Some studies suggest combining 
antioxidants with other treatments, leading to improved 
pregnancy rates and sperm parameters in specific cases.



Pa
ge

 
12

9

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmsi

Am. J. Med. Sci. Innov. 3(2) 121-130, 2024

Limitations
- The evaluation of  long-term advantages may be 

hampered by the lack of  long-term data on reproductive 
outcomes following treatment, especially for non-surgical 
methods.

- The inclusion of  studies with varying designs, 
patient populations, and outcome measures resulted in 
heterogeneity and impact the applicability of  the findings.

- The publication bias, where positive results are more 
likely to be published, can potentially affect the overall 
effect estimates and interpretation of  findings.

- The reliability and validity of  the meta-analysis results 
may be affected by variability in the quality of  included 
studies, despite using a modified QUADAS questionnaire 
for risk assessment.

CONCLUSION 
In conclusion, surgical treatment like Varicoceleectomy 
remains a primary option for improving fertility outcomes 
in men with varicocele, offering significant benefits in 
terms of  pregnancy rates, sperm parameters, and long-
term results. Non-surgical approaches like varicocele 
embolization provide alternatives with faster recovery and 
minimal invasiveness, while antioxidant supplementation 
may have a supportive role in combination therapies 
but does not show conclusive benefits as a standalone 
treatment.

Recommendations
- Increase the number of  RCTs comparing surgical 

and non-surgical varicocele management, particularly 
with long-term follow-ups, to evaluate sustained fertility 
outcomes.

- Conduct subgroup analyses based on preoperative 
factors like age, baseline sperm parameters, and varicocele 
severity can identify patient groups that benefit most 
from different management approaches.

- Longitudinal studies should be encouraged to assess 
the long-term impact of  non-surgical techniques like 
varicocele embolization beyond the immediate post-
treatment period.

- The study suggests incorporating cost-effectiveness 
analyses to evaluate the economic impact of  various 
varicocele management strategies, considering both 
short-term and long-term costs.

REFERENCES
Abdel-Meguid, T. A., Al-Sayyad, A., Tayib, A., & Farsi, 

H. M. (2011). Does varicocele repair improve male 
infertility? An evidence-based perspective from a 
randomized, controlled trial. European urology, 59(3), 
455-461. 

Agarwal, A., Cannarella, R., Saleh, R., Harraz, A. M., 
Kandil, H., Salvio, G., Boitrelle, F., Kuroda, S., 
Farkouh, A. a., & Rambhatla, A. (2023). Impact of  
antioxidant therapy on natural pregnancy outcomes 
and semen parameters in infertile men: a systematic 
review and meta-analysis of  randomized controlled 

trials. The World Journal of  Men’s Health, 41(1), 14. 
Alsaikhan, B., Alrabeeah, K., Delouya, G., & Zini, A. 

(2016). Epidemiology of  varicocele. Asian journal of  
andrology, 18(2), 179-181. 

Arhin, S. K., Ocansey, S., Barnes, P., Botchey, C. P. K., & 
Taylor-Adbulai, H. B. (2021). Efficacy of  combined 
antioxidant therapy in male subfertility-A systematic 
review and meta-analysis. Cellular and Molecular Biology, 
67(4), 239-247. 

Baazeem, A., Belzile, E., Ciampi, A., Dohle, G., Jarvi, K., 
Salonia, A., Weidner, W., & Zini, A. (2011). Varicocele 
and male factor infertility treatment: a new meta-
analysis and review of  the role of  varicocele repair. 
European urology, 60(4), 796-808. 

Birowo, P., Tendi, W., Widyahening, I. S., Atmoko, W., 
& Rasyid, N. (2020). The benefits of  varicocele 
repair for achieving pregnancy in male infertility: A 
systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon, 6(11). 

Busetto, G. M., Rodrigues, B. F., Virmani, A., Checchia, 
A., Ninivaggi, A., Ricapito, A., Barbieri, G., Fischetti, 
P., Falagario, U. G., & Annese, P. (2024). Antioxidant 
treatment for oligoasthenoteratozoospermia and 
varicocele: a DBPC trial to evaluate the impact of  age 
and body mass index. Asian journal of  andrology, 10, 
4103. 

Busetto, G. M., Saleh, R., Gül, M., & Agarwal, A. 
(2022). Therapy in Oligozoospermia (Varicocele, 
Cryptorchidism, Inflammation, and Seminal Tract 
Infections). In Practical Clinical Andrology (pp. 185-
198). Springer International Publishing Cham. 

Cochrane methods of  QUADAS-C Tool. (2022). 
Fallara, G., Capogrosso, P., Pozzi, E., Belladelli, F., 

Corsini, C., Boeri, L., Candela, L., Schifano, N., Dehò, 
F., & Castiglione, F. (2023). The effect of  varicocele 
treatment on fertility in adults: a systematic review 
and meta-analysis of  published prospective trials. 
European Urology Focus, 9(1), 154-161. 

Garg, H., & Kumar, R. (2016). An update on the role 
of  medical treatment including antioxidant therapy in 
varicocele. Asian journal of  andrology, 18(2), 222-228. 

Ghanem, H., Shaeer, O., & El-Segini, A. (2010). 
Combination clomiphene citrate and antioxidant 
therapy for idiopathic male infertility: a randomized 
controlled trial. Fertility and sterility, 93(7), 2232-2235. 

Hassanin, A., Ahmed, H., & Kaddah, A. (2018). A global 
view of  the pathophysiology of  varicocele. Andrology, 
6(5), 654-661. 

Huang, H.-C., Huang, S.-T., Chen, Y., Hsu, Y.-C., Chang, 
P.-C., & Hsieh, M.-L. (2014). Prognostic factors 
for successful varicocelectomy to treat varicocele-
associated male infertility. Reproduction, fertility and 
development, 26(3), 485-490. 

Inci, K., & Gunay, L. M. (2013). The role of  varicocele 
treatment in the management of  non-obstructive 
azoospermia. Clinics, 68, 89-98. 

Kim, K. H., Lee, J. Y., Kang, D. H., Lee, H., Seo, J. T., 
& Cho, K. S. (2013). Impact of  surgical varicocele 
repair on pregnancy rate in subfertile men with 



Pa
ge

 
13

0

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmsi

Am. J. Med. Sci. Innov. 3(2) 121-130, 2024

clinical varicocele and impaired semen quality: a meta-
analysis of  randomized clinical trials. Korean Journal of  
Urology, 54(10), 703. 

Kirby, E. W., Wiener, L. E., Rajanahally, S., Crowell, K., & 
Coward, R. M. (2016). 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. Fertility and sterility, 106(6), 1338-1343. 

Maheshwari, A., Muneer, A., Lucky, M., Mathur, R., 
McEleny, K., Surgeons, B. A. o. U., & Society, t. B. F. 
(2022). A review of  varicocele treatment and fertility 
outcomes. Human Fertility, 25(2), 209-216. 

Marmar, J. L., Agarwal, A., Prabakaran, S., Agarwal, R., 
Short, R. A., Benoff, S., & Thomas Jr, A. J. (2007). 
Reassessing the value of  varicocelectomy as a 
treatment for male subfertility with a new meta-
analysis. Fertility and sterility, 88(3), 639-648. 

Ouanes, Y., Rahoui, M., Chaker, K., Marrak, M., Bibi, M., 
Dali, K. M., Sellami, A., Rhouma, S. B., & Nouira, 
Y. (2022). Functional outcomes of  surgical treatment 
of  varicocele in infertile men: Comparison of  three 
techniques. Annals of  Medicine and Surgery, 78. 

Persad, E., O’Loughlin, C. A., Kaur, S., Wagner, G., 
Matyas, N., Hassler-Di Fratta, M. R., & Nussbaumer-
Streit, B. (2021). Surgical or radiological treatment 
for varicoceles in subfertile men. Cochrane Database of  
Systematic Reviews(4). 

Phan, H. T., Nguyen, T. X., Nguyen, D. V., Vu, H. A., 
Le, D. A., & Pham, N. H. (2021). Efficacy of  scroto-
inguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy in treating 
male infertility. African Journal of  Urology, 27, 1-5. 

Pyrgidis, N., Sokolakis, I., Palapelas, V., Tishukov, M., 
Mykoniatis, I., Symeonidis, E. N., Zachariou, A., 
Kaltsas, A., Sofikitis, N., & Hatzichristodoulou, G. 
(2021). The effect of  antioxidant supplementation 
on operated or non-operated varicocele-associated 
infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 
Antioxidants, 10(7), 1067. 

Su, J. S., Farber, N. J., & Vij, S. C. (2021). Pathophysiology 
and treatment options of  varicocele: an overview. 
Andrologia, 53(1), e13576. 

Tiseo, B. C., Esteves, S. C., & Cocuzza, M. S. (2016). 
Summary evidence on the effects of  varicocele 
treatment to improve natural fertility in subfertile 
men. Asian journal of  andrology, 18(2), 239-245. 

Wang, J., Xia, S.-J., Liu, Z.-H., Tao, L., Ge, J.-F., Xu, C.-M., 
& Qiu, J.-X. (2015). Inguinal and subinguinal micro-
varicocelectomy, the optimal surgical management of  
varicocele: a meta-analysis. Asian journal of  andrology, 
17(1), 74-80. 

Wang, N., Dallas, K., Li, S., Baker, L., & Eisenberg, 
M. (2018). The association between varicocoeles 
and vascular disease: an analysis of  US claims data. 
Andrology, 6(1), 99-103. 

Will, M. A., Swain, J., Fode, M., Sonksen, J., Christman, 
G. M., & Ohl, D. (2011). The great debate: varicocele 
treatment and impact on fertility. Fertility and sterility, 
95(3), 841-852. 

Zengerling, F. (2022). Surgical or radiological treatment 
of  varicoceles in subfertile men. Urologie (Heidelberg, 
Germany), 61(12), 1382-1386. 


