Objective: To evaluate the frequency and the role of a coincidentally expressed abacterial prostato-vesiculitis (PV) on sperm output in patients with left varicocele (Vr). Materials and Methods: We evaluated 143 selected infertile patients (mean age 27 years, range 21-43), with oligo- and/or astheno- and/or teratozoospermia (OAT) subdivided in two groups. Group A included 76 patients with previous varicocelectomy and persistent OAT. Group B included 67 infertile patients (mean age 26 years, range 21-37) with OAT and not varicocelectomized. Patients with Vr and coincidental didymo-epididymal ultrasound (US) abnormalities were excluded from the study. Following rectal prostato-vesicular ultrasonography, each group was subvided in two subsets on the basis of the absence (group A: subset Vr-/PV-; and group B: subset Vr+/PV-) or the presence of an abacterial PV (group A: subset Vr-/PV+; group B: subset Vr+/PV+). Particularly, PV was present in 47.4% and 41.8% patients of groups A and B, respectively. This coincidental pathology was ipsilateral with Vr in the 61% of the cases. Semen analysis was performed in all patients. Results: Patients of group A showed a total sperm number significantly higher than those found in group B. In presence of PV, sperm parameters were not significantly different between matched-subsets (Vr-/PV+ vs. Vr+/PV+). In absence of PV, the sperm density, the total sperm number and the percentage of forward motility from subset with previous varicocelectomy (Vr-/PV) exhibited values significantly higher than those found in the matched -subset (Vr+/PV-). Conclusion: Sperm analysis alone performed in patients with left Vr is not a useful prognostic post-varicocelectomy marker. Since following varicocelectomy a lack of sperm response could mask another coincidental pathology, the identification through US scans of a possible PV may be mandatory. On the other hand, an integrated uro-andrological approach, including US scans, allows to enucleate subsets of patients with Vr alone, who will have an expected better sperm response following Vr repair.
Varicocele e coincidentale prostato-vesciculite abatterica : riflessi negativi sull’output spermatico [Varicocele and coincidental abacterial prostato-vesiculitis : negative role about the sperm output]
VICARI, Enzo Saretto;LA VIGNERA, SANDRO SALVUCCIO MARIA;CARDI', Francesco;
2003-01-01
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the frequency and the role of a coincidentally expressed abacterial prostato-vesiculitis (PV) on sperm output in patients with left varicocele (Vr). Materials and Methods: We evaluated 143 selected infertile patients (mean age 27 years, range 21-43), with oligo- and/or astheno- and/or teratozoospermia (OAT) subdivided in two groups. Group A included 76 patients with previous varicocelectomy and persistent OAT. Group B included 67 infertile patients (mean age 26 years, range 21-37) with OAT and not varicocelectomized. Patients with Vr and coincidental didymo-epididymal ultrasound (US) abnormalities were excluded from the study. Following rectal prostato-vesicular ultrasonography, each group was subvided in two subsets on the basis of the absence (group A: subset Vr-/PV-; and group B: subset Vr+/PV-) or the presence of an abacterial PV (group A: subset Vr-/PV+; group B: subset Vr+/PV+). Particularly, PV was present in 47.4% and 41.8% patients of groups A and B, respectively. This coincidental pathology was ipsilateral with Vr in the 61% of the cases. Semen analysis was performed in all patients. Results: Patients of group A showed a total sperm number significantly higher than those found in group B. In presence of PV, sperm parameters were not significantly different between matched-subsets (Vr-/PV+ vs. Vr+/PV+). In absence of PV, the sperm density, the total sperm number and the percentage of forward motility from subset with previous varicocelectomy (Vr-/PV) exhibited values significantly higher than those found in the matched -subset (Vr+/PV-). Conclusion: Sperm analysis alone performed in patients with left Vr is not a useful prognostic post-varicocelectomy marker. Since following varicocelectomy a lack of sperm response could mask another coincidental pathology, the identification through US scans of a possible PV may be mandatory. On the other hand, an integrated uro-andrological approach, including US scans, allows to enucleate subsets of patients with Vr alone, who will have an expected better sperm response following Vr repair.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
