MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415938146 · doi:10.1111/iwj.70780

Evaluating Silicone Gel Efficacy in Reducing Scar Formation Following Microscopic Inguinal Varicocelectomy: A Double‐Blind Prospective Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W4415938146 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Iman Shamohammadi, Sina Jamzad, Shima Jamzad, Abdolreza Haghpanah

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Wound Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShiraz UniversityShiraz University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsSiliconeScarsPlaceboRandomized controlled trialProspective cohort studyVaricocele

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Wound JournalSame topicSperm and Testicular FunctionFrench-language works237,207