Journal of Reproduction & Infertility

Journal of Reproduction & Infertility

Relationship of Clinical and Ultrasonographic Grades of Varicocele with Semen Analysis Profile and Testicular Volume

Authors
Amin Abolhasani Foroughi 1
Manoochehr Dallaki 2
Seyed Ali Hosseini 3
Ali Ariafar 4
1 Department of Radiology, Medical Imaging Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran; Epilepsy Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
2 Department of Radiology, Medical Imaging Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
3 Department of Biochemistry, Student Research Committee, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
4 Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
10.18502/jri.v23i2.8992
Abstract
Background: Varicoceles are a major cause of infertility. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship of the clinical and ultrasonographic grades of varicocele with the semen analysis profile and testicular volume among men undergoing scrotal ultrasonography. Methods: This cross-sectional analytical study involved 109 males undergoing scrotal ultrasonography for various indications in Shiraz, Iran, between January 2019 and January 2020. Varicoceles were graded with color Doppler ultrasonography (CDU) by an expert radiologist (Sarteschi's criteria) before an experienced urologist determined the clinical grade (Dubin and Amelar criteria) and requested further investigations. Next, the demographics, reasons for referral, testicular volumes, and semen analysis profiles across the different clinical/ultrasonographic grades were compared. Key statistical measures included Cohen's kappa coefficient, the Mann–Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests, and Spearman correlation. Data were analyzed using SPSS v. 21 with p-values <0.05 indicating statistical significance. Results: Ultrasonographic grades 1 and 2 provided the highest correlation with subclinical cases, while ultrasonographic grades 3, 4, and 5 corresponded with clinical grades 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Further comparisons were made between subclinical and clinical cases, which were similar in terms of reason for referral, total testicular volume, testicular volume differential, and semen analysis profile. Notably, total testicular volumes below 30 ml were associated with oligoasthenoteratospermia. Conclusion: The present study showed a relatively high correlation between varicocele grading based on clinical evaluation and CDU. However, the grades were similar in testicular volume parameters and semen analysis indices. Hence, decision-making should be guided by the infertility history, testicular atrophy, and abnormal semen analysis.
Keywords
Infertility
Male urogenital diseases
Ultrasonography
Varicocele
Fretz PC, Sandlow JI. Varicocele: current concepts in pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Urol Clin North Am. 2002;29(4):921-37.
Lundy SD, Sabanegh Jr ES. Varicocele management for infertility and pain: a systematic review. Arab J Urol. 2017;16(1):157-70.
Cimador M, Castagnetti M, Gattuccio I, Pensabene M, Sergio M, De Grazia E. The hemodynamic ap-proach to evaluating adolescent varicocele. Nat Rev Urol. 2012;9(5):247-57.
Pilatz A, Altinkilic B, Köhler E, Marconi M, Weid-ner W. Color Doppler ultrasound imaging in vari-coceles: is the venous diameter sufficient for pre-dicting clinical and subclinical varicocele? World J Urol. 2011;29(5):645-50.
Sarteschi M. Lo studio del varicocele con eco-color-Doppler. G It Ultrason. 1993;4:43-9.
Sigman M, Jarow JP. Ipsilateral testicular hypotro-phy is associated with decreased sperm counts in infertile men with varicoceles. J Urol. 1997;158(2): 605-7.
Sharlip I, Jarow J, Belker A, Damewood M, Howards S, Lipshultz L, et al. Report on varicocele and infertility. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:S142-S5.
Belay RE, Huang GO, Shen JKC, Ko EYK. Diag-nosis of clinical and subclinical varicocele: how has it evolved? Asian J Androl. 2016;18(2):182-5.
Bhatt S, Jafri S, Wasserman N, Dogra VS. Imaging of non-neoplastic intratesticular masses. Diagn In-terv Radiol. 2011;17(1):52-63.
Arai T, Kitahara S, Horiuchi S, Sumi S, Yoshida K. Relationship of testicular volume to semen profiles and serum hormone concentrations in in-fertile Japanese males. Int J Fertil Womens Med. 1998;43(1):40-7.
Kurtz MP, Zurakowski D, Rosoklija I, Bauer SB, Borer JG, Johnson KL, et al. Semen parameters in adolescents with varicocele: association with testis volume differential and total testis volume. J Urol. 2015;193(5 Suppl):1843-7.
Dubin L, Amelar RD. Varicocele size and results of varicocelectomy in selected subfertile men with varicocele. Fertil Steril. 1970;21(8):606-9.
Foroughi AA, Yazdanpanah E, Nazeri M, Eghbali T, Arasteh P, Ariafar A. Clinical grading and color Doppler ultrasonography-based grading of varico-cele: how compatible are the two grading systems? World J Urol. 2019;37(7):1461-5.
Jedrzejewski G, Osemlak P, Wieczorek AP, Nach-ulewicz P. Testicular sonographic color doppler dynamic tissue perfusion measurements in adole-scents with varicocele. Urol Int. 2019;103(1):55-61.
Sigman M. There is more than meets the eye with varicoceles: current and emerging concepts in pathophysiology, management, and study design. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(6):1281-2.
Agarwal A, Sharma R, Harlev A, Esteves SC. Effect of varicocele on semen characteristics ac-cording to the new 2010 World Health Organiza-tion criteria: a systematic review and meta-ana-lysis. Asian J Androl. 2016;18(2):163-70.
Jensen CFS, Østergren P, Dupree JM, Ohl DA, Sønksen J, Fode M. Varicocele and male in-fertility. Nat Rev Urol. 2017;14(9):523-33.
Ghaed MA, Makian SA, Moradi A, Maghsoudi R, Gandomi-Mohammadabadi A. Best time to wait for the improvement of the sperm parameter after varicocelectomy: 3 or 6 months? Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2020;92(3).
Zheng YQ, Gao X, Li ZJ, Yu YL, Zhang ZG, Li W. Efficacy of bilateral and left varicocelectomy in infertile men with left clinical and right subclinical varicoceles: a comparative study. Urology. 2009; 73(6):1236-40.
Kim HJ, Seo JT, Kim KJ, Ahn H, Jeong JY, Kim JH, et al. Clinical significance of subclinical vari-cocelectomy in male infertility: Systematic review and meta‐analysis. Andrologia. 2016;48(6):654-61.
Owen RC, McCormick BJ, Figler BD, Coward RM. A review of varicocele repair for pain. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(Suppl 1):S20-S9.
Damsgaard J, Joensen UN, Carlsen E, Erenpreiss J, Jensen MB, Matulevicius V, et al. Varicocele is associated with impaired semen quality and re-productive hormone levels: a study of 7035 healthy young men from six European countries. Eur Urol. 2016;70(6):1019-29.
Semiz I, Tokgöz Ö, Tokgoz H, Voyvoda N, Seri-foglu I, Erdem Z. The investigation of correlation between semen analysis parameters and intra-parenchymal testicular spectral Doppler indices in patients with clinical varicocele. Ultrasound Q. 2014;30(1):33-40.
Akbay E, Cayan S, Doruk E, Duce M, Bozlu M. The prevalence of varicocele and varicocele‐ related testicular atrophy in Turkish children and adolescents. BJU Int. 2000;86(4):490-3.
Oliva A, Multigner L. Chronic epididymitis and Grade III varicocele and their associations with semen characteristics in men consulting for couple infertility. Asian J Androl. 2018;20(4):360-5.
Sakamoto H, Saito K, Ogawa Y, Yoshida H. Effects of varicocele repair in adults on ultraso-nographically determined testicular volume and on semen profile. Urology. 2008;71(3):485-9.
Krishna Reddy S, Basha Shaik A, Sailaja S, Ven-kataramanaiah M. Outcome of varicocelectomy with different degrees of clinical varicocele in infertile male. Advanc Androl. 2015;2015:1-9.
Journal of Reproduction & Infertility
Volume 23, Issue 2
Spring 2022
Pages 84-92