Microsurgical Varicocelectomy for Isolated Asthenospermia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Varicocele represents the most common cause of male infertility, and most reports indicate that varicocelectomy has a beneficial effect on male fertility and pregnancy outcome. We evaluated the clinical outcomes of infertile couples with varicocele and isolated asthenospermia who chose to undergo varicocelectomy as well as those who chose not to undergo the procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 118 consecutive infertile couples in whom the man presented with clinical varicocele and isolated asthenospermia (less than 50% motile sperm). All couples were presented with possible treatment options (observation, varicocelectomy, assisted reproductive technologies). The clinical characteristics and outcomes of 2 subgroups of men--those who elected to undergo surgery (varicocelectomy, 69) and those who did not (49)--were examined and compared. RESULTS: Mean male and female patient age, duration of infertility and baseline total motile sperm count were not significantly different in the control and surgery groups. The mean total motile sperm count increased significantly after varicocelectomy (29.6 million preoperatively vs 39.0 million postoperatively, p <0.05). The spontaneous pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the surgery group compared to the control group (65% vs 32%, respectively, p <0.01). The combined spontaneous and intrauterine insemination pregnancy rate was also significantly higher in the surgery group compared to the control group (74% vs 36%, respectively, p <0.01). Use of in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection was significantly higher in the control group compared to the surgery group (32% vs 11%, respectively, p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the practice of varicocelectomy for the treatment of clinical varicocele and isolated asthenospermia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".