Objective: Comparison of the safety and efficacy of open, laparoscopic and microscopic treatments for varicocele. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane of Library, the Web of science, CNKI, WanFang databases from the beginning to December 31st 2025 were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.0 software. Results: Included in 5 studies, 1250 patients, the network meta-analysis showed that compared with OV and LV, the operation time of MV was slightly longer, and the incidence of complications and recurrence after MV was significantly lower than that of OV and LV. There is no statistical difference in the comparison of the length of hospital stay and the amount of blood loss during the operation of the two types of surgery. The results of the node analysis show that there is no statistical inconsistency (P>0.05). Conclusion: The current evidence shows the safety of the treatment of adolescent varicocele surgery On the one hand, MV may be the best choice, followed by LV, and finally OV. However, due to the uneven quality of the original studies, it is recommended that the clinical use be carefully selected. More high quality, large sample RCTs are needed for further demonstration.
| Published in | Science Research (Volume 14, Issue 3) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.sr.20261403.12 |
| Page(s) | 71-78 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Varicocele, Adolescent, Network Meta-analysis
作者 | 年份 | 试验类型 | 干预措施 | 样本量 | 年龄 | 指标 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OV | LV | MV | ||||||
Cayan S | 2005 | RCT | OV/MV | 51/49 | 14.7±2.39 | * | 14.7±2.39 | ④⑤ |
Podkamenev | 2002 | RCT | OV/LV | 220/434 | 13.95±0.11 | 14.13±0.08 | * | ①③④⑤ |
张泽键 | 2016 | RCT | OV/LV | 37/35/34 | 15.14±3.46 | 16.11±3.06 | 15.72±3.29 | ①②③④⑤ |
OV/MV | ||||||||
LV/MV | ||||||||
朱瑞龙 | 2012 | RCT | OV/LV | 178/79/17 | 16.93±2.94 | 17.32±2.81 | 17.12±2.09 | ①②③④⑤ |
OV/MV | ||||||||
LV/MV | ||||||||
罗远维 | 2019 | OV/LV | 30/30/30 | 13.22±1.67 | 14.05±1.55 | 13.88±1.47 | ①②③④⑤ | |
RCT | OV/MV | |||||||
LV/MV | ||||||||
张泽键 | 2016 | RCT | OV/LV | 37/35/34 | 15.14±3.46 | 16.11±3.06 | 15.72±3.29 | ①②③④⑤ |
OV/MV | ||||||||
LV/MV | ||||||||
朱瑞龙 | 2012 | RCT | OV/LV | 178/79/17 | 16.93±2.94 | 17.32±2.81 | 17.12±2.09 | ①②③④⑤ |
OV/MV | ||||||||
LV/MV | ||||||||
罗远维 | 2019 | OV/LV | 30/30/30 | 13.22±1.67 | 14.05±1.55 | 13.88±1.47 | ①②③④⑤ | |
RCT | OV/MV | |||||||
LV/MV | ||||||||
纳入指标 | OV | LV | MV |
|---|---|---|---|
手术时间/SMD(95%CI） | |||
OV | 1 | ||
LV | 0.00 (0.00,16.61) | 1 | |
MV | 0.00 (0.00,0.00) | 0.00 (0.00,0.00) | 1 |
住院时间/SMD(95%CI） | |||
OV | 1 | ||
LV | 2.22 (0.26,18.94) | 1 | |
MV | 4.66 (0.41,52.59) | 2.10 (0.25,17.73) | 1 |
术中失血量/SMD(95%CI） | |||
OV | 1 | ||
LV | 0.41 (0.04,3.91) | 1 | |
MV | 0.31 (0.04,2.67) | 0.76 (0.22,2.67) | 1 |
复发率/RR(95%CI） | |||
OV | 1 | ||
LV | 1.86 (0.74,4.69) | 1 | |
MV | 6.27 (1.36,28.89) | 3.36 (0.63,18.00) | 1 |
并发症/RR(95%CI） | |||
OV | 1 | ||
LV | 2.06 (0.75,5.70) | 1 | |
MV | 8.10 (1.53,43.01) | 3.93 (0.68,22.69) | 1 |
手术方式 | 手术时间 | 住院时间 | 术中失血量 | 复发 | 并发症 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OV | 35 | 49.1 | 18.1 | 94.5 | 95.3 |
LV | 15.3 | 83.1 | 55.7 | 51 | 51.1 |
MV | 99.8 | 17.8 | 76.2 | 4.5 | 3.6 |
| [1] | WEIN AJ, KAVOUSSI LR, PARTIN AW, et a1. Campbell—Walsh Urology [M]. 11th International Edition, Oxford: Elsevier, 2016: 498—1148. |
| [2] | HOEY H, STEPHENSON T, NAMAZOVA-BARANOVA L, et al. Prevention and Therapeutic Innovation in the Management of Child Health [J]. The Journal of pediatrics, 2019, 20(8), 300-301. |
| [3] | CHIBA K, RAMASAMY R, LAMB D J, et al. The varicocele: diagnostic dilemmas, therapeutic challenges and future perspectives [J]. Asian journal of andrology, 2016, 18(2): 276-281. |
| [4] | ZHOU T, ZHANG W, CHEN Q, et al. Effect of varicocelectomy on testis volume and semen parameters in adolescents: a meta-analysis [J]. Asian journal of andrology, 2015, 17(6): 1012-1016. |
| [5] |
POGORELIĆ Z, SOPTA M, JUKIĆ M, et al. Laparoscopic Varicocelectomy Using Polymeric Ligating Clips and Its Effect on Semen Parameters in Pediatric Population with Symptomatic Varicocele: A 5-Year Single Surgeon Experience [J]. Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques Part A, 2017, 27(12): 1318-1325.
https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2017.0439 Epub 2017 Oct 11. |
| [6] | JUKIC M, TODORIC M, TODORIC J, et al. Laparoscopic Versus Open High Ligation for Adolescent Varicocele: A 6-year Single Center Study [J]. Indian Pediatrics, 2019, 56(8): 653-658. |
| [7] | Useem J, Brennan A, LaValley M, et al. Systematic Differences between Cochrane and Non-Cochrane Meta-Analyses on the Same Topic: A Matched Pair Analysis [J]. PLoS One. 2015; 10(12): e0144980. |
| [8] | CAYAN S, ACAR D, ULGER S, et al. Adolescent varicocele repair: long-term results and comparison of surgical techniques according to optical magnification use in 100 cases at a single university hospital [J]. The Journal of urology, 2005, 174(5): 2003-2006. |
| [9] | PODKAMENEV V V, STALMAKHOVICH V N, URKOV P S, et al. Laparoscopic surgery for pediatric varicoceles: Randomized controlled trial [J]. Journal of pediatric surgery, 2002, 37(5): 727-729. |
| [10] | 张泽键, 王细生, 彭乃雄等. 青少年精索静脉曲张三种手术方式疗效比较 [J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(09): 703-705. |
| [11] | 朱瑞龙, 姜岩, 陈泽荣等3种手术方法治疗青少年原发性精索静脉曲张近期疗效分析 [J]. 新乡医学院学报, 2012, 29(06): 462-464. |
| [12] | 罗逸维, 胡文知, 代珊珊, 等. 采用三种手术方法治疗青少年精索静脉曲张近期疗效对比 [J]. 中国实用医药, 2019, 14(23): 54-55. |
| [13] | CHO C-L, ESTEVES S C, AGARWAL A. Indications and outcomes of varicocele repair [J]. Panminerva Medica, 2019, 61(2): 152-163. |
| [14] | VALENTINO M, BERTOLOTTO M, DERCHI L, et al. Children and adults varicocele: diagnostic issues and therapeutical strategies [J]. Journal of ultrasound, 2014, 17(3): 185-193. |
| [15] | PAJOVIC B, RADOJEVIC N. Prospective follow up of fertility after adolescent laparoscopic varicocelectomy [J]. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci, 2013, 17(8): 1060-1063. |
| [16] | SEREFOGLU E C, SAITZ T R, LA NASA J A, JR., et al. Adolescent varicocoele management controversies [J]. Andrology, 2013, 1(1): 109-115. |
| [17] | VELASQUEZ M, TANRIKUT C. Surgical management of male infertility: an update [J]. Transl Androl Urol, 2014, 3(1): 64-76. |
| [18] | YUAN R, ZHUO H, CAO D, et al. Efficacy and safety of varicocelectomies: A meta-analysis [J]. Syst Biol Reprod Med, 2017, 63(2): 120-129. |
| [19] | Jing L, Jinfeng W, Peng X, et al. Efficacy and safety of microsurgery and laparoscopic surgery for varicocele: a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis [J]. Modern Medicine Journal of China, 2015, 17(10): 16-22. |
| [20] | DING H, TIAN J, DU W, et al. Open non-microsurgical, laparoscopic or open microsurgical varicocelectomy for male infertility: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials [J]. BJU international, 2012, 110(10): 1536-1542. |
| [21] | LIU X, ZHANG H, RUAN X, et al. Macroscopic and microsurgical varicocelectomy: What's the intraoperative difference? [J]. World Journal of Urology, 2013, 31(3): 603-608. |
| [22] | CAYAN S, SHAVAKHABOV S, KADIOĞLU A. Treatment of palpable varicocele in infertile men: a meta-analysis to define the best technique [J]. J Androl, 2009, 30(1): 33-40. |
| [23] | LUNDY S D, SABANEGH E S, JR. Varicocele management for infertility and pain: A systematic review [J]. Arab J Urol, 2018, 16(1): 157-170. |
APA Style
Li, J., Liu, Y., Yang, Z. (2026). Network Meta-analysis of Three Kinds of Surgical Treatment of Adolescent Varicocele. Science Research, 14(3), 71-78. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sr.20261403.12
ACS Style
Li, J.; Liu, Y.; Yang, Z. Network Meta-analysis of Three Kinds of Surgical Treatment of Adolescent Varicocele. Sci. Res. 2026, 14(3), 71-78. doi: 10.11648/j.sr.20261403.12
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.sr.20261403.12,
author = {Jian Li and Yu Liu and Zeng Yang},
title = {Network Meta-analysis of Three Kinds of Surgical Treatment of Adolescent Varicocele},
journal = {Science Research},
volume = {14},
number = {3},
pages = {71-78},
doi = {10.11648/j.sr.20261403.12},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sr.20261403.12},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.sr.20261403.12},
abstract = {Objective: Comparison of the safety and efficacy of open, laparoscopic and microscopic treatments for varicocele. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane of Library, the Web of science, CNKI, WanFang databases from the beginning to December 31st 2025 were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.0 software. Results: Included in 5 studies, 1250 patients, the network meta-analysis showed that compared with OV and LV, the operation time of MV was slightly longer, and the incidence of complications and recurrence after MV was significantly lower than that of OV and LV. There is no statistical difference in the comparison of the length of hospital stay and the amount of blood loss during the operation of the two types of surgery. The results of the node analysis show that there is no statistical inconsistency (P>0.05). Conclusion: The current evidence shows the safety of the treatment of adolescent varicocele surgery On the one hand, MV may be the best choice, followed by LV, and finally OV. However, due to the uneven quality of the original studies, it is recommended that the clinical use be carefully selected. More high quality, large sample RCTs are needed for further demonstration.},
year = {2026}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Network Meta-analysis of Three Kinds of Surgical Treatment of Adolescent Varicocele AU - Jian Li AU - Yu Liu AU - Zeng Yang Y1 - 2026/05/29 PY - 2026 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sr.20261403.12 DO - 10.11648/j.sr.20261403.12 T2 - Science Research JF - Science Research JO - Science Research SP - 71 EP - 78 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2329-0927 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sr.20261403.12 AB - Objective: Comparison of the safety and efficacy of open, laparoscopic and microscopic treatments for varicocele. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane of Library, the Web of science, CNKI, WanFang databases from the beginning to December 31st 2025 were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.0 software. Results: Included in 5 studies, 1250 patients, the network meta-analysis showed that compared with OV and LV, the operation time of MV was slightly longer, and the incidence of complications and recurrence after MV was significantly lower than that of OV and LV. There is no statistical difference in the comparison of the length of hospital stay and the amount of blood loss during the operation of the two types of surgery. The results of the node analysis show that there is no statistical inconsistency (P>0.05). Conclusion: The current evidence shows the safety of the treatment of adolescent varicocele surgery On the one hand, MV may be the best choice, followed by LV, and finally OV. However, due to the uneven quality of the original studies, it is recommended that the clinical use be carefully selected. More high quality, large sample RCTs are needed for further demonstration. VL - 14 IS - 3 ER -
Department of Urinary Surgery, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University (Zhuhai), Zhuhai, China
Department of Urinary Surgery, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University (Zhuhai), Zhuhai, China
Department of Urinary Surgery, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University (Zhuhai), Zhuhai, China
Information