Micronized purified flavonoid fraction (MPFF) is a widely prescribed and extensively investigated venoactive drug (VAD). The standard dosage for MPFF is 500 mg administered twice daily. However, a new daily dose of 1000 mg has just been introduced.

This study investigated whether a daily dose of 1000 mg MPFF could be implemented and embraced by the public and still has the same therapeutic effects as conventional pharmaceuticals.

For this meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Science of Web, Cochrane, and PubMed databases and forward and backward citations for studies published between database inception and March 2023. Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of comparison of different dosages of MPFF to evaluate whether there is a significant difference between them were included, without language or date restrictions. Due to the small sample size of the study included, we conducted a simple sensitivity test using a one-by-one exclusion method, and the results showed that the study did not affect the final consolidation conclusion. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

Out of 232 studies, 99 were eligible and 39 RCTs had data, all with low to moderate bias. Overall, 1924 patients (experimental group: 967, control group: 957) in 3 RCTs met the criteria. There is no significant difference in patient compliance, efficacy, clinical adverse events, and quality of life scores between MPFF 1000 mg once daily and MPFF 500 mg twice daily (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.049 [0.048, 0.145], p=0.321, risk ratio [RR]: 0.981 [0.855, 1.125], p=0.904, and SMD: 0.063 [0.034, 0.160], p=0.203).

In symptomatic chronic venous disease patients, MPFF 1000 mg once daily and MPFF 500 mg twice daily improve patient compliance, lower limb discomfort, clinical adverse events, and quality of life scores similarly. Regular medical care should recommend MPFF 1000 mg daily more often.

Micronized purified flavonoid fraction (MPFF) is a popular venoactive medication (VAD) in modern medicine.MPFF is effective in treating lower extremity venous problems.Currently, besides conventional 500 mg tablets, there exist alternative dosage forms such as solutions, chewable tablets, and other novel formulations for MPFF.The excessive frequency and amount of medication may have a negative impact on patient adherence.

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is a severe cutaneous adverse reaction which exhibits a diverse range of presentations. We described a 48-year-old man diagnosed with acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP)-like DRESS following the administration of diosmin and hesperidin. To our knowledge, diosmin and hesperidin-induced DRESS are exceptionally rare. This aims to raise awareness of potential severe cutaneous side effects in patients taking these agents.

Despite being regarded as one of the most common causes of male subfertility, the pathophysiology of varicocele remains largely unknown. Recently, oxidative stress (OS) is proposed to be the mediator in how varicocele may negatively impact fertility. The imbalance of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and seminal antioxidants results in damage to sperm DNA and lipid membrane. There is evidence demonstrating higher OS level in men with varicocele which is also positively correlated with clinical grading of varicocele. Moreover, a number of studies have revealed the negative correlation between OS and conventional semen parameters. Furthermore, various interventions have shown their potential in alleviating OS in men with varicocele-associated infertility. Although direct evidence on improving pregnancy rate is not available at the moment, varicocelectomy has demonstrated promising results in relieving OS. Oral antioxidants represent another option with a favourable safety profile. The supplement can be used alone or as adjunct to varicocelectomy. However, most of the studies are hampered by heterogenous dose regime and high-level evidence is lacking.

The inability to have children affects 10% to 15% of couples worldwide. A male factor is estimated to account for up to half of the infertility cases with between 25% to 87% of male subfertility considered to be due to the effect of oxidative stress. Oral supplementation with antioxidants is thought to improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative damage. Antioxidants are widely available and inexpensive when compared to other fertility treatments, however most antioxidants are uncontrolled by regulation and the evidence for their effectiveness is uncertain. We compared the benefits and risks of different antioxidants used for male subfertility.

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of supplementary oral antioxidants in subfertile men.

The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, and two trial registers were searched on 15 February 2021, together with reference checking and contact with experts in the field to identify additional trials.

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment, or treatment with another antioxidant, among subfertile men of a couple attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded studies comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and studies that included men with idiopathic infertility and normal semen parameters or fertile men attending a fertility clinic because of female partner infertility.

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth. Clinical pregnancy, adverse events and sperm parameters were secondary outcomes.

We included 90 studies with a total population of 10,303 subfertile men, aged between 18 and 65 years, part of a couple who had been referred to a fertility clinic and some of whom were undergoing medically assisted reproduction (MAR). Investigators compared and combined 20 different oral antioxidants. The evidence was of 'low' to 'very low' certainty: the main limitation was that out of the 67 included studies in the meta-analysis only 20 studies reported clinical pregnancy, and of those 12 reported on live birth. The evidence is current up to February 2021. Live birth: antioxidants may lead to increased live birth rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.91, P = 0.02, 12 RCTs, 1283 men, I2 = 44%, very low-certainty evidence). Results in the studies contributing to the analysis of live birth rate suggest that if the baseline chance of live birth following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 16%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 17% and 27%. However, this result was based on only 246 live births from 1283 couples in 12 small or medium-sized studies. When studies at high risk of bias were removed from the analysis, there was no evidence of increased live birth (Peto OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.75, 827 men, 8 RCTs, P = 0.27, I2 = 32%). Clinical pregnancy rate: antioxidants may lead to increased clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.47, P < 0.00001, 20 RCTs, 1706 men, I2 = 3%, low-certainty evidence) compared with placebo or no treatment. This suggests that, in the studies contributing to the analysis of clinical pregnancy, if the baseline chance of clinical pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 15%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 20% and 30%. This result was based on 327 clinical pregnancies from 1706 couples in 20 small studies. Adverse events Miscarriage: only six studies reported on this outcome and the event rate was very low. No evidence of a difference in miscarriage rate was found between the antioxidant and placebo or no treatment group (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.83, P = 0.27, 6 RCTs, 664 men, I2 = 35%, very low-certainty evidence). The findings suggest that in a population of subfertile couples, with male factor infertility, with an expected miscarriage rate of 5%, the risk of miscarriage following the use of an antioxidant would be between 4% and 13%. Gastrointestinal: antioxidants may lead to an increase in mild gastrointestinal discomfort when compared with placebo or no treatment (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.99, P = 0.002, 16 RCTs, 1355 men, I2 = 40%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of gastrointestinal discomfort following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 2%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 2% and 7%. However, this result was based on a low event rate of 46 out of 1355 men in 16 small or medium-sized studies, and the certainty of the evidence was rated low and heterogeneity was high. We were unable to draw conclusions from the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison as insufficient studies compared the same interventions.

In this review, there is very low-certainty evidence from 12 small or medium-sized randomised controlled trials suggesting that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve live birth rates for couples attending fertility clinics. Low-certainty evidence suggests that clinical pregnancy rates may increase. There is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, however antioxidants may give more mild gastrointestinal discomfort, based on very low-certainty evidence. Subfertile couples should be advised that overall, the current evidence is inconclusive based on serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods of randomisation, failure to report on the clinical outcomes live birth rate and clinical pregnancy, often unclear or even high attrition, and also imprecision due to often low event rates and small overall sample sizes. Further large well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials studying infertile men and reporting on pregnancy and live births are still required to clarify the exact role of antioxidants.

Flavonoids are phytochemicals that are well known for their beneficial pharmacological properties. Diosmin is a flavone glycoside derived from hesperidin, a flavanone abundantly found in citrus fruits. Daflon is an oral phlebotonic flavonoid combination containing diosmin and hesperidin (9:1) that is commonly used for the management of blood vessel disorders. After oral administration, diosmin is converted to diosmetin, which is subsequently absorbed and esterified into glucuronide conjugates that are excreted in the urine. Pharmacological effects of diosmin have been investigated in several in vitro and in vivo studies, and it was found to possess anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antidiabetic, antihyperlipidemic, and antifibrotic effects in different disease models. Diosmin also demonstrated multiple desirable properties in several clinical studies. Moreover, toxicological studies showed that diosmin has a favorable safety profile. Accordingly, diosmin is a potential effective and safe treatment for many diseases. However, diosmin exhibits inhibitory effects on different metabolic enzymes. This encourages the investigation of its potential therapeutic effect and safety in different diseases in clinical trials, while taking potential interactions into consideration.

Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is becoming of increasing significance due to its growing global prevalence and risk of progression to end-stage liver disease. This study was carried out to investigate the potential anti-inflammatory, insulin sensitizing, and antifibrotic effects of diosmin in an experimental model of NASH induced in rats using high-fat diet (HFD) and 30 mg/kg streptozotocin (STZ). Diosmin was administered orally at dose of 100 mg/kg for 8 weeks. Stained tissue sections were examined for histopathological signs of NASH, collagen deposition, and alpha smooth muscle actin (α-SMA) expression. In addition, insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, inflammation, and fibrosis markers were assessed. HFD/STZ successfully induced different NASH features such as insulin resistance seen by elevated fasting blood glucose levels and homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance. Moreover, induced rats demonstrated dyslipidemia, a significant elevation in tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin-6 levels, and an imbalance in the oxidative status of the liver. Those events altogether precipitated initiation of liver fibrosis as confirmed by elevated transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β) levels. Treatment with diosmin demonstrated multiple beneficial effects as it significantly ameliorated histopathological NASH findings, lowered TNF-α, interleukin-6, and malondialdehyde levels, improved lipid and glucose metabolism, and lowered hepatic TGF-β, α-SMA, and collagen content compared to untreated rats. The present study represents a drug repositioning scenario as diosmin is widely used for management of blood vessel disorders and is known to be well tolerated. This encourages the extension of our study to the clinical setting to explore diosmin effects in NASH patients.

The inability to have children affects 10% to 15% of couples worldwide. A male factor is estimated to account for up to half of the infertility cases with between 25% to 87% of male subfertility considered to be due to the effect of oxidative stress. Oral supplementation with antioxidants is thought to improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative damage. Antioxidants are widely available and inexpensive when compared to other fertility treatments, however most antioxidants are uncontrolled by regulation and the evidence for their effectiveness is uncertain. We compared the benefits and risks of different antioxidants used for male subfertility. This review did not examine the use of antioxidants in normospermic men.

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of supplementary oral antioxidants in subfertile men.

The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and two trials registers were searched on 1 February 2018, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional trials.

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among subfertile men of a couple attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded studies comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and studies that included fertile men attending a fertility clinic because of female partner infertility.

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth. Clinical pregnancy, adverse events and sperm parameters were secondary outcomes.

We included 61 studies with a total population of 6264 subfertile men, aged between 18 and 65 years, part of a couple who had been referred to a fertility clinic and some of whom were undergoing assisted reproductive techniques (ART). Investigators compared and combined 18 different oral antioxidants. The evidence was of 'low' to 'very low' quality: the main limitation was that out of the 44 included studies in the meta-analysis only 12 studies reported on live birth or clinical pregnancy. The evidence is current up to February 2018.Live birth: antioxidants may lead to increased live birth rates (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.67, P = 0.005, 7 RCTs, 750 men, I2 = 40%, low-quality evidence). Results suggest that if in the studies contributing to the analysis of live birth rate, the baseline chance of live birth following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 12%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 14% and 26%. However, this result was based on only 124 live births from 750 couples in seven relatively small studies. When studies at high risk of bias were removed from the analysis, there was no evidence of increased live birth (Peto OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.16; participants = 540 men, 5 RCTs, P = 0.15, I2 = 0%).Clinical pregnancy rate: antioxidants may lead to increased clinical pregnancy rates (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.91 to 4.63, P < 0.0001, 11 RCTs, 786 men, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) compared to placebo or no treatment. This suggests that if in the studies contributing to the analysis of clinical pregnancy, the baseline chance of clinical pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 7%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 12% and 26%. This result was based on 105 clinical pregnancies from 786 couples in 11 small studies.Adverse eventsMiscarriage: only three studies reported on this outcome and the event rate was very low. There was no difference in miscarriage rate between the antioxidant and placebo or no treatment group (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.40 to 7.60, P = 0.46, 3 RCTs, 247 men, I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence). The findings suggest that in a population of subfertile men with an expected miscarriage rate of 2%, the chance following the use of an antioxidant would result in the risk of a miscarriage between 1% and 13%.Gastrointestinal: antioxidants may lead to an increase in mild gastrointestinal upsets when compared to placebo or no treatment (OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.25 to 5.03, P = 0.010, 11 RCTs, 948 men, I2 = 50%, very low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of gastrointestinal upsets following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 2%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 2% and 9%. However, this result was based on a low event rate of 35 out of 948 men in 10 small or medium-sized studies, and the quality of the evidence was rated very low and was high in heterogeneity.We were unable to draw any conclusions from the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison as insufficient studies compared the same interventions.

In this review, there is low-quality evidence from seven small randomised controlled trials suggesting that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve live birth rates for couples attending fertility clinics. Low-quality evidence suggests that clinical pregnancy rates may also increase. Overall, there is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, however antioxidants may give more mild gastrointestinal upsets but the evidence is of very low quality. Subfertilte couples should be advised that overall, the current evidence is inconclusive based on serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods of randomisation, failure to report on the clinical outcomes live birth rate and clinical pregnancy, often unclear or even high attrition, and also imprecision due to often low event rates and small overall sample sizes. Further large well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials reporting on pregnancy and live births are still required to clarify the exact role of antioxidants.

This study sought to evaluate the impact of varicocele repair on intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes.

A prospective comparative study was conducted at the Assisted Reproduction Unit, International Islamic Center for Population Studies and Researches, Al-Azhar University. This study included 100 non-azoospermic infertile men with a history of varicocele who were scheduled for intracytoplasmic sperm injection, half of them had already undergone prior subinguinal varicocelectomy at least 12 months prior to ICSI without clinically evident recurrence (treated group 1), and the other half has any grade of an unrepaired clinical varicocele (untreated group 2) at sperm injection. All cases were clinically evaluated and eligible for analysis by using inclusion and exclusion criteria. ICSI outcomes compared between the two groups, including fertilisation rate, embryo development rate and pregnancy outcome.

Our study did not show any significant difference between treated and untreated groups regarding the mean values of fertilisation (0.7759 ± 0.2708 vs. 0.7119 ± 0.3057, p = 0.2708), embryo development (0.7759 ± 0.2708 vs. 0.6991 ± 0.3211, p = 0.1990) or different embryo grades. There was no statistically significant difference between groups regarding pregnancy occurrence rates (p = 0.0928).

Infertile men scheduled for ICSI do not seem to benefit from varicocele repair as regard to the outcomes of ICSI.

Varicocele may play a significant role in a subset of patients presenting with male factor infertility. Despite its relatively high prevalence amongst subfertile men, there has been controversy over the effectiveness of surgical treatments, patient selection, and when to administer treatment, particularly in the era of assisted reproductive technology.

In line with earlier finding, recent evidence strongly suggests that varicocelectomy improves pregnancy rates and semen parameters. The currently available literature still does not clearly elucidate the answer to this question, due to flaws in retrospective study design. Patients undergoing subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy appear to have the highest pregnancy rates, and lowest complication rates, compared to other surgical approaches. Current research has given us a better understanding of the relationship between varicocele and infertility. Amongst men presenting with semen analysis abnormalities and varicoceles, including those patients presenting with non-obstructive azoospermia or couples with a significant male factor component failing previous attempts at in vitro fertilization, varicocelectomy may improve take home baby rates. More robust, prospective, controlled studies are needed to further clarify the population of subfertile men with varicocele most likely to benefit from varicocelectomy.

Varicocele-associated male infertility has classically been managed using surgery or assisted reproductive techniques. With increasing evidence of oxidative stress as a pathophysiological factor in varicocele-associated infertility, medical therapy especially antioxidants might become a treatment option with lower risks. We reviewed the existing literature on the role of various medical agents in the management of male infertility attributed to varicoceles. Medical therapy is typically evaluated in three different situations such as (a) comparison of two drugs or one drug with placebo, (b) comparison of drugs versus surgery, and (c) comparison of drugs as adjuvant therapy with surgery versus drug therapy alone. Due to heterogeneity of data and lack of well-conducted studies, there is insufficient data to recommend routine use of medical therapy for men with varicocele-associated infertility and surgery remains the treatment of choice. Pregnancy and live birth rates are usually not reported in most studies and mere improvement in sperm parameters or antioxidant capacity is insufficient to support its routine use. Antioxidant therapy is a potential option due to its theoretical benefit, data from preclinical studies, and lack of major side effects. Adjuvant therapy with antioxidants after surgical repair of varicocele may improve the outcome and is a potential area for further research.

Male factor contributes to 50%-60% of overall infertility but is solely responsible in only 20% of couples. Although most male factor infertility is ascertained from an abnormal semen analysis, other male factors can be contributory especially if the sample returns normal. Male infertility can be due to identifiable hormonal or anatomical etiologies that may be reversible or irreversible. This manuscript will highlight existing guidelines and our recommendations for hormone evaluation for male infertility and empiric therapies including multivitamins, estrogen receptor modulators (clomiphene), estrogen conversion blockers (anastrozole), and hormone replacement.

Between 30% to 80% of male subfertility cases are considered to be due to the damaging effects of oxidative stress on sperm and 1 man in 20 will be affected by subfertility. Antioxidants are widely available and inexpensive when compared to other fertility treatments and many men are already using these to improve their fertility. It is thought that oral supplementation with antioxidants may improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative stress. Pentoxifylline, a drug that acts like an antioxidant, was also included in this review.  

This Cochrane review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral supplementation with antioxidants for subfertile male partners in couples seeking fertility assistance.

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and AMED databases (from inception until January 2014); trial registers; sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. An updated search was run in August 2014 when potentially eligible studies were placed in 'Studies awaiting assessment'.

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any type or dose of antioxidant supplement (single or combined) taken by the subfertile male partner of a couple seeking fertility assistance with a placebo, no treatment or another antioxidant.

Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates, adverse events, sperm DNA fragmentation, sperm motility and concentration. Data were combined, where appropriate, to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main outcomes using GRADE methods.  

This updated review included 48 RCTs that compared single and combined antioxidants with placebo, no treatment or another antioxidant in a population of 4179 subfertile men. The duration of the trials ranged from 3 to 26 weeks with follow up ranging from 3 weeks to 2 years. The men were aged from 20 to 52 years. Most of the men enrolled in these trials had low total sperm motility and sperm concentration. One study enrolled men after varicocelectomy, one enrolled men with a varicocoele, and one recruited men with chronic prostatitis. Three trials enrolled men who, as a couple, were undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and one trial enrolled men who were part of a couple undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI). Funding sources were stated by 15 trials. Four of these trials stated that funding was from a commercial source and the remaining 11 obtained funding through non-commercial avenues or university grants. Thirty-three trials did not report any funding sources.A limitation of this review was that in a sense we had included two different groups of trials, those that reported on the use of antioxidants and the effect on live birth and clinical pregnancy, and a second group that reported on sperm parameters as their primary outcome and had no intention of reporting the primary outcomes of this review. We included 25 trials reporting on sperm parameters and only three of these reported on live birth or clinical pregnancy. Other limitations included poor reporting of study methods, imprecision, the small number of trials providing usable data, the small sample size of many of the included studies and the lack of adverse events reporting. The evidence was graded as 'very low' to 'low'. The data were current to 31 January 2014.Live birth: antioxidants may have increased live birth rates (OR 4.21, 95% CI 2.08 to 8.51, P< 0.0001, 4 RCTs, 277 men, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a live birth following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 5%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 10% and 31%. However, this result was based on only 44 live births from a total of 277 couples in four small studies.Clinical pregnancy rate: antioxidants may have increased clinical pregnancy rates (OR 3.43, 95% CI 1.92 to 6.11, P < 0.0001, 7 RCTs, 522 men, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 6%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated at between 11% and 28%. However, there were only seven small studies in this analysis and the quality of the evidence was rated as low.Miscarriage: only three trials reported on this outcome and the event rate was very low. There was insufficient evidence to show whether there was a difference in miscarriage rates between the antioxidant and placebo or no treatment groups (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.40 to 7.60, P = 0.46, 3 RCTs, 247 men, I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence). The findings suggest that in a population of subfertile men with an expected miscarriage rate of 2%, use of an antioxidant would result in the risk of a miscarriage lying between 1% and 13%.Gastrointestinal upsets: there was insufficient evidence to show whether there was a difference in gastrointestinal upsets when antioxidants were compared to placebo or no treatment as the event rate was very low (OR 1.60, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.50, P = 0.46, 6 RCTs, 429 men, I(2) = 0%).We were unable to draw any conclusions from the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison as not enough trials compared the same interventions.

There is low quality evidence from only four small randomised controlled trials suggesting that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve live birth rates for couples attending fertility clinics. Low quality evidence suggests that clinical pregnancy rates may increase. There is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage but this is uncertain as the evidence is of very low quality. Data were lacking on other adverse effects. Further large well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials are needed to clarify these results.

Varicoceles are a common finding in adolescent boys and men. Most are asymptomatic, although up to 10% may cause testicular pain. This study will review the use of varicocelectomy in the treatment of testicular pain in men with clinical varicoceles, as well as provide prognostic indicators for successful outcome.

Recent studies that examined the impact of varix ligation on preoperative testicular pain were reviewed. Most studies are retrospective and uncontrolled; although objective outcome measures were used in the majority. Varicocele grade, duration of discomfort, and the quality of pain tended to predict outcome but have not been universally supported.

On the basis of the majority of the recently published studies, varicocelectomy, in the properly chosen patients, results in significant improvement or resolution of testicular pain.

Varicocele, the leading cause of male infertility, can impair spermatogenesis through several pathophysiological mechanisms. Of these, current evidence suggests that oxidative stress is the central element contributing to infertility in men with varicocele, to which the testis responds by way of heat stress, ischaemia or production of vasodilators, such as nitric oxide. Surgical varicocele repair (varicocelectomy) is beneficial not only for alleviating oxidative stress-associated infertility, but also for preventing and protecting against the progressive character of varicocele and its consequent upregulations of systemic oxidative stress. However, antioxidant therapy in infertile men with surgically treated and those with untreated varicocele is poorly studied, and well-designed trials are needed.

We investigated the effect of micronized purified flavonoid fraction on the prevention of testicular pathologies following varicocele induction.

A total of 66 adolescent (6-week-old) male Wistar rats were included in study. Rats were divided into 7 groups, including group 1--control, group 2--sham operation, group 3--left varicocele induced, group 4--varicocele induced, varicocelectomy done 4 weeks later and micronized purified flavonoid fraction administered for 4 weeks, group 5--varicocele induced and micronized purified flavonoid fraction administered for 8 weeks, group 6--varicocele induced and beginning 4 weeks later micronized purified flavonoid fraction administered for 4 weeks, and group 7--varicocele induced and varicocelectomy done 4 weeks later. Before sacrifice bilateral real-time testicular microvascular perfusion of all rats was measured using the PeriFlux System 5000 PF 5010 LDPM Unit (Perimed, Järfälla, Sweden). All testes were graded according to the Johnsen scoring system. To assess apoptosis caspase-3 levels were measured.

Testicular weight in group 3 was markedly decreased and the extent of seminiferous tubular damage was significantly increased compared with the other groups. Bilateral testicular blood flow and the number of apoptotic germ cells were greater in group 3. Significantly higher Johnsen scores and a meaningful decrease in the apoptotic index were detected in groups 4 to 7 compared with group 3.

We observed favorable effects of micronized purified flavonoid fraction on the regression of testicular damage secondary to varicocele.