Aspiration and Sclerotherapy for the Management of Hydrocele in an Ambulatory and Regional Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To assess the efficacy and safety of aspiration and sclerotherapy for the management of hydroceles in an ambulatory regional setting. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on all men who underwent aspiration and sclerotherapy for the management of symptomatic hydroceles at a single regional Australian centre from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2023. All procedures were carried out in an ambulant setting under local anaesthetic and sodium tetradecyl sulphate (STD) as the sclerosing agent. Results: 291 men were included in the study with a median follow-up of 99 days. Resolution of hydrocele both clinically and symptomatically post initial aspiration and sclerotherapy was 58.8% (171/291). The average time to recurrence for men who failed initial management was 167 days (IQR 28–112 days). Following initial aspiration and sclerotherapy, 67.7% (63/93) of men with recurrence chose to have a repeat aspiration and sclerotherapy of these men, and 68.3% (43/63) had resolution of their hydroceles. Hence, after two aspiration and sclerotherapy interventions, 73.5% (214/291) of men had clinical and symptomatic resolution of their hydroceles. The median age of participants was 62.3 years (IQR 52.1–70.8). The median initial aspirated volume was 150 mL (IQR 100–250 mL), and the injected volume was 10 mL (IQR 8–10 mL). Notably, the median aspirated volume decreased for men with a recurrence to 100 mL (IQR 63.8–143.8 mL), and an injected volume of 0 ml (IQR 0–4.8 mL). The overall complication rate was 3.4% (10/291), of which all but one was managed conservatively. Conclusion: Aspiration and sclerotherapy with STD represent a minimally invasive, safe and effective treatment for hydroceles that can be utilized in the regional and ambulatory settings under local anaesthetic, potentially reducing wait times for interventions and improving patient flow for public hospital waitlists.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".