Varicocelectomy For Infertile Men with Clinical Varicocele and Normal Semen Parameters, In Relation to Pregnancy Rate and Recurrent Spontaneous Miscarriage Incidence: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. Current guidelines suggest performing varicocelectomy only for men with clinical varicocele, infertile, abnormal semen parameters, and impaired testicular development. Varicocelectomy in infertile men with normal semen parameters was deemed to not benefit fertility significantly. The purpose of this systematic review is to discuss articles that studied varicocelectomy in men with clinical varicocele, normal semen analysis, and normal women who experience infertility or spontaneous miscarriage and find out whether there is an improvement in pregnancy and live birth rate.Methods. The databases used for searching articles in this study are PubMed and Cochrane using the keywords “varicocele”, “normal semen parameters”, “recurrent miscarriage”, “sperm DNA fragmentation”, and “infertility”. The outcome of the articles sought is pregnancy rates and miscarriage rates after varicocelectomy.Result. After carrying out the article selection process, there are 2 articles used. One study is a randomized control trial and another one is a non-randomized control trial. All enrolled patients had varicocele and normal semen analysis results according to WHO guidelines 2022. The average pregnancy rate after varicocelectomy at a 12-month follow-up interval was 51% in the varicocelectomy group vs 25% in the control group. The average miscarriage rate was 6% in the varicocelectomy group vs 34% in the control group. One study showed a correlation between decreasing Sperm DNA fragmentation and pregnancy rate.Conclusion. Varicocelectomy may provide benefits in infertile couples and cases of recurrent spontaneous miscarriage with normal female factors and men with varicocele with normal semen parameters.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".