Evaluating Silicone Gel Efficacy in Reducing Scar Formation Following Microscopic Inguinal Varicocelectomy: A Double‐Blind Prospective Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This prospective, double-blind controlled trial was conducted to determine the effect of silicone gel in the reduction of postoperative scar after bilateral inguinal varicocelectomy. Thirty-four patients were enrolled in this study; the right-side inguinal scar was treated with silicone gel and petroleum jelly (Vaseline) applied on the left side as a placebo for 60 consecutive days. Scars were evaluated using the Vancouver Scar Scale, pruritus and pain. The result of this study showed that silicone gel was effective in the regression of postoperative scar after microscopic inguinal varicocelectomy in five key parameters, including vascularity, pigmentation, pliability, height and pruritus in comparison to placebo application (p < 0.05), while its effect on pain was insignificant (p > 0.05). The study showed that silicone gel had a considerable effect in the treatment and management of postoperative scar management. Varicocele is a condition that is considered the most common cause of male infertility. While microscopic inguinal varicocelectomy is considered a gold standard in the management of varicocele, its postoperative complications, such as scar formation remain a concern. Recent studies show that silicone gel can be an effective non-invasive treatment for scar regression. Accordingly, we designed this trial to evaluate the effect of silicone gel after microscopic inguinal surgery. A prospective double-blind controlled trial was conducted on 34 patients who had microscopic bilateral inguinal varicocelectomy (their age ranged from 19 to 41) at Namazi hospital. Two weeks after surgery, each patient received two identical tubes for application on the scars, the first tube containing silicone gel and the second one dispensed with petroleum jelly (Vaseline). The right side was treated with silicone gel, and the left side with Vaseline twice daily for 60 days. Then, patients were evaluated three times: firstly 2 weeks after surgical repair; second appointment after 2 months and third one after 6 months after surgery, using the Vancouver Scar Scale, pruritus and pain score. The collected data were analysed in SPSS 26, using the chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests. The significance level was defined at p < 0.05. This study showed that silicone gel was highly effective in scar parameters, including pliability, height, vascularity pruritic and pigmentation. However, its effect on pain reduction was not significant (p > 0.05). The results of the study indicated that silicone gel effectively improved scar characteristics following microscopic inguinal varicocelectomy, while its efficacy against pain was not significant.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".