MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MP30-17 A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF EMBOLIZATION VERSUS SURGICAL MANAGEMENT OF VARICOCELE IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO: A POPULATION-BASED STUDY

2023· article· en· W4360605454 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aidan Canil, Wenbin Li, Kingston Canada, Premal Patel, Winnipeg Canada, Ben Mussari, Timothy P. Hanna, D. Robert Siemens, R. Christopher Doiron

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVaricoceleEmbolizationPopulationGeneral surgerySurgeryInfertility

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP30-17 A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF EMBOLIZATION VERSUS SURGICAL MANAGEMENT OF VARICOCELE IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO: A POPULATION-BASED STUDY Aidan Canil, Wenbin Li, Kingston Canada, Premal Patel, Winnipeg Canada, Ben Mussari, Timothy Hanna, D. Robert Siemens, and R. Christopher Doiron Aidan CanilAidan Canil More articles by this author , Wenbin LiWenbin Li More articles by this author , Kingston CanadaKingston Canada More articles by this author , Premal PatelPremal Patel More articles by this author , Winnipeg CanadaWinnipeg Canada More articles by this author , Ben MussariBen Mussari More articles by this author , Timothy HannaTimothy Hanna More articles by this author , D. Robert SiemensD. Robert Siemens More articles by this author , and R. Christopher DoironR. Christopher Doiron More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003258.17AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The optimal approach for management of varicocele is currently unknown. Existing evidence is of low quality with no randomized controlled studies comparing approaches. We provide the first population-based analysis of embolization vs surgical management of varicocele. METHODS: All patients in the province of Ontario who underwent treatment of their varicocele between April 1, 2002-March 31, 2012 were identified using ICES databases. The index intervention was considered the approach first used in the treatment-naïve patient – open surgery or embolization. The primary outcome was the rate of reintervention while secondary outcomes included complications and healthcare utilization. RESULTS: We identified 557,650 male patients with a varicocele diagnosis, of whom n=3,180 underwent an intervention and were included in the study – n=2,139(67%) underwent open varicocelectomy while n=1,041(33%) underwent embolization as their index intervention (Figure 1). Reintervention was more common amongst those who underwent embolization compared to those who underwent surgical management [n=97(9.3%) vs n=142(6.6%);p<0.01]. While controlling for demographics, regression analysis showed surgical varicocelectomy was still less likely to require reintervention [OR 0.68(0.52-0.90);p<0.01].Those who underwent surgical management had higher rates of complications requiring ED visits within 1 month of the procedure. This association was persistent on regression analysis, controlling for demographics [OR 1.69(1.27-2.25);p<0.01]. There was no difference in hospital admissions between the groups [OR 1.53(0.94-2.49);p=0.087].There was a weak association between socioeconomic status (SES) and type of index intervention with the least wealthy income quintile more likely to receive surgery [OR 1.27(1.01-1.60);p=0.04] while there was no difference based on rurality and age. CONCLUSIONS: This first population-based study to examine surgical management vs embolization for treatment of varicocele shows that surgery is less likely to require repeat intervention but with a modest increased risk of complications. Source of Funding: NA © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e397 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Aidan Canil More articles by this author Wenbin Li More articles by this author Kingston Canada More articles by this author Premal Patel More articles by this author Winnipeg Canada More articles by this author Ben Mussari More articles by this author Timothy Hanna More articles by this author D. Robert Siemens More articles by this author R. Christopher Doiron More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of UrologySame topicSperm and Testicular FunctionFrench-language works237,207