PERCUTANEOUS ASPIRATION AND SCLEROTHERAPY FOR TREATMENT OF SPERMATOCELES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Spermatoceles are commonly treated with open surgical ablation. With the increasing shift towards minimally invasive surgery and heightened awareness, both patient and surgeon accept and prefer the less intrusive approach. Treatment of spermatoceles translates into the use of aspiration and sclerotherapy rather than open excision. We report on our prospective study of percutaneous aspiration and sclerotherapy with sodium tetradecyl sulfate for treatment of spermatoceles to determine safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with symptomatic cystic scrotal lesions were prospectively enrolled in an aspiration and sclerotherapy protocol between October 1998 and June 2000. All patients underwent aspiration followed by sclerotherapy with a sodium tetradecyl sulfate solution. Followup included clinical assessment and scrotal ultrasonography at 12 weeks and on a needed basis thereafter. RESULTS: A total of 28 patients with 34 spermatoceles were enrolled in the protocol. Mean patient age was 61.0 years and mean spermatocele volume was 89.3 ml. Complete followup was available for 31 of 34 (91%) spermatoceles, and the mean duration of followup was 24.6 weeks. Results were cure in 29% success in 36%, partial success in 19% and failure in 16% of cases. Patient satisfaction was 85% and there were no complications. The total cost of each procedure was only $104 (Canadian), and none took more than 10 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous aspiration and sclerotherapy with sodium tetradecyl sulfate is a minimally invasive, simple, safe, inexpensive and reasonably efficacious treatment option for spermatoceles. Initial failures can be salvaged with second treatment.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".