比较不同栓塞材料在改善精索静脉曲张患者疼痛和生育效果方面的疗效:系统性综述。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Daniel Kasunic, Mitchell Crebert, Patrick-Julien Treacy, Daniel Steffens, Sascha Karunaratne, Richard Waugh, Ruban Thanigasalam, Scott Leslie
{"title":"比较不同栓塞材料在改善精索静脉曲张患者疼痛和生育效果方面的疗效:系统性综述。","authors":"Daniel Kasunic, Mitchell Crebert, Patrick-Julien Treacy, Daniel Steffens, Sascha Karunaratne, Richard Waugh, Ruban Thanigasalam, Scott Leslie","doi":"10.1111/1754-9485.13801","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Radiological embolisation has emerged as a safe and effective alternative to surgery for varicocele treatment. While systematic reviews have compared embolisation to surgery, attempts to compare different embolisation materials have been limited. The objective was to conduct a systematic review assessing the potential benefits of combining coils with sclerosants for varicocele embolisation on fertility, pain, recurrence and complication rates in male patients, as compared to using coils alone. The search was conducted through MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL databases from inception to May 2023. Comparative studies that reported male varicocele patients treated with embolisation using either coils or coils with sclerosants were included, with primary outcomes of either fertility, pain or recurrence. Pearling of reference lists was also performed to identify additional articles. Risk of bias for each study was assessed using the Downs and Black Checklist. Overall, 21 studies (2236 patients) were included. Patients were treated with coils in 14 studies, and nine studies used coils with sclerosants. An improvement in sperm concentration and motility was identified post-embolisation in most studies that reported these outcomes. Pregnancy and recurrence rates were comparable between the two materials. All four studies that reported pain outcomes following embolisation noted improvement in pain scores. Only one comparative study was included, for recurrence. This review has identified improvements in pain and fertility following varicocele embolisation. However, it could not be determined which material was superior due to the lack of high-quality comparative studies in the literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":16218,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the efficacy of different embolisation materials in improving pain and fertility outcomes in patients with varicoceles: A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Kasunic, Mitchell Crebert, Patrick-Julien Treacy, Daniel Steffens, Sascha Karunaratne, Richard Waugh, Ruban Thanigasalam, Scott Leslie\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1754-9485.13801\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Radiological embolisation has emerged as a safe and effective alternative to surgery for varicocele treatment. While systematic reviews have compared embolisation to surgery, attempts to compare different embolisation materials have been limited. The objective was to conduct a systematic review assessing the potential benefits of combining coils with sclerosants for varicocele embolisation on fertility, pain, recurrence and complication rates in male patients, as compared to using coils alone. The search was conducted through MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL databases from inception to May 2023. Comparative studies that reported male varicocele patients treated with embolisation using either coils or coils with sclerosants were included, with primary outcomes of either fertility, pain or recurrence. Pearling of reference lists was also performed to identify additional articles. Risk of bias for each study was assessed using the Downs and Black Checklist. Overall, 21 studies (2236 patients) were included. Patients were treated with coils in 14 studies, and nine studies used coils with sclerosants. An improvement in sperm concentration and motility was identified post-embolisation in most studies that reported these outcomes. Pregnancy and recurrence rates were comparable between the two materials. All four studies that reported pain outcomes following embolisation noted improvement in pain scores. Only one comparative study was included, for recurrence. This review has identified improvements in pain and fertility following varicocele embolisation. However, it could not be determined which material was superior due to the lack of high-quality comparative studies in the literature.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16218,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.13801\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.13801","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

放射栓塞术已成为精索静脉曲张手术治疗的一种安全有效的替代方法。虽然系统性综述对栓塞与手术进行了比较,但对不同栓塞材料进行比较的尝试却很有限。本研究旨在进行一项系统性综述,评估在精索静脉曲张栓塞术中结合使用线圈和硬化剂对男性患者的生育能力、疼痛、复发率和并发症发生率的潜在益处,并与单独使用线圈进行比较。该研究通过 MEDLINE、Embase 和 CENTRAL 数据库进行检索,检索时间从开始到 2023 年 5 月。研究纳入了报告男性精索静脉曲张患者使用线圈或带有硬化剂的线圈进行栓塞治疗的对比研究,主要结果为生育、疼痛或复发。此外,还对参考文献列表进行了筛选,以确定其他文章。每项研究的偏倚风险均采用唐斯和布莱克核对表进行评估。总共纳入了 21 项研究(2236 名患者)。在14项研究中,患者接受了线圈治疗,9项研究使用了线圈和硬化剂。在大多数报告了这些结果的研究中,都发现了栓塞后精子浓度和活力的改善。两种材料的怀孕率和复发率相当。报告栓塞术后疼痛结果的四项研究均指出疼痛评分有所改善。只有一项关于复发的比较研究被纳入其中。本综述确定了精索静脉曲张栓塞术后疼痛和生育率的改善情况。但是,由于文献中缺乏高质量的对比研究,因此无法确定哪种材料更优。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing the efficacy of different embolisation materials in improving pain and fertility outcomes in patients with varicoceles: A systematic review.

Radiological embolisation has emerged as a safe and effective alternative to surgery for varicocele treatment. While systematic reviews have compared embolisation to surgery, attempts to compare different embolisation materials have been limited. The objective was to conduct a systematic review assessing the potential benefits of combining coils with sclerosants for varicocele embolisation on fertility, pain, recurrence and complication rates in male patients, as compared to using coils alone. The search was conducted through MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL databases from inception to May 2023. Comparative studies that reported male varicocele patients treated with embolisation using either coils or coils with sclerosants were included, with primary outcomes of either fertility, pain or recurrence. Pearling of reference lists was also performed to identify additional articles. Risk of bias for each study was assessed using the Downs and Black Checklist. Overall, 21 studies (2236 patients) were included. Patients were treated with coils in 14 studies, and nine studies used coils with sclerosants. An improvement in sperm concentration and motility was identified post-embolisation in most studies that reported these outcomes. Pregnancy and recurrence rates were comparable between the two materials. All four studies that reported pain outcomes following embolisation noted improvement in pain scores. Only one comparative study was included, for recurrence. This review has identified improvements in pain and fertility following varicocele embolisation. However, it could not be determined which material was superior due to the lack of high-quality comparative studies in the literature.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
133
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology (formerly Australasian Radiology) is the official journal of The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, publishing articles of scientific excellence in radiology and radiation oncology. Manuscripts are judged on the basis of their contribution of original data and ideas or interpretation. All articles are peer reviewed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信