Spermatic vein embolization as a treatment for symptomatic varicocele
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Varicocele is a relatively common condition in men that causes pain in approximately 10% of cases. There have been few studies to date assessing the improvements in both pain and quality of life parameters associated with spermatic vein embolization (SVE) as a treatment for patients with symptomatic varicocele, so we aimed to assess this. METHODS: A review was carried out of consecutive SVE procedures performed at our institution from 2013-2019. Only patients with painful varicocele were included after other causes of testicular pain were excluded. The technique employed was a combination of distal coil embolization of the spermatic vein with 4-6 mm coils at the level of the inguinal canal, as well as sclerotherapy to prevent reflux of sclerosant. Furthermore, a prospective validated Pain Impact Questionnaire-6 (PIQ-6) was performed to assess for improvement in quality of life. A matched pair Student two-tailed t-test was used to compare mean scores pre- and post-treatment, with 95% confidence intervals presented as T scores and their associated p-values. RESULTS: Over six years, 62 SVE procedures were performed for symptomatic varicocele. Success rate was 95%, with a median followup of nine months. Two patients had a failed procedure on two occasions requiring subsequent surgical ligation. There was one clinically significant recurrence. All components of PIQ-6 score showed a statistically significant reduction post-SVE, most noticeably pain severity and impact on leisure activities. CONCLUSIONS: SVE is a safe, effective, and well-tolerated treatment for symptomatic varicocele, improving pain and quality of life.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".