Dye Assisted Lymphatic Sparing Subinguinal Varicocelectomy
NCT ID: NCT01259258
Last Updated: 2010-12-14
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
PHASE2
80 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2008-01-31
2010-02-28
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Results: There were no intraoperative complications in either group. There were no adverse reactions, scrotal haematomas or atrophy. In group 1, no patient had a hydrocele at 3 months after surgery. By contrast, in group 2 (surgery alone) there were four cases of secondary hydrocele (10%; P=0.025)); no testicular hypertrophy was observed following lymphatic sparing surgery , One patient in each group had varicocele recurrence. Pregnancy was reported in 30 patients (37.5%) during a follow up period, 17 of them (42.5%) were group(1),P \>0.34. difference was not significantly different among the two groups
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Keywords
Explore important study keywords that can help with search, categorization, and topic discovery.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
varicocelectomy with dye
subinguinal varicocelectomy for 40 patients who received 2 ml intratunical space injection of methylene blue before spermatic vein ligation
without dye varicocelectomy
40 controls in whom no mapping technique was adopted in the period between
without dye varicocelectomy
40 controls in whom no mapping technique was adopted in the period between
without dye varicocelectomy
40 controls in whom no mapping technique was adopted in the period between
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
without dye varicocelectomy
40 controls in whom no mapping technique was adopted in the period between
without dye varicocelectomy
40 controls in whom no mapping technique was adopted in the period between
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
20 Years
45 Years
MALE
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Mansoura University
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
masoura university
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
ayman elnakeeb, MD
Role: STUDY_CHAIR
Mansoura University
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Mansoura University
Al Mansurah, , Egypt
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Ghanem H, Anis T, El-Nashar A, Shamloul R. Subinguinal microvaricocelectomy versus retroperitoneal varicocelectomy: comparative study of complications and surgical outcome. Urology. 2004 Nov;64(5):1005-9. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.06.060.
Zini A, Fischer A, Bellack D, Noss M, Kamal K, Chow V, Mak V. Technical modification of microsurgical varicocelectomy can reduce operating time. Urology. 2006 Apr;67(4):803-6. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.10.044. Epub 2006 Mar 29.
Schwentner C, Oswald J, Lunacek A, Deibl M, Bartsch G, Radmayr C. Optimizing the outcome of microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy using isosulfan blue: a prospective randomized trial. J Urol. 2006 Mar;175(3 Pt 1):1049-52. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00410-6.
Atteya A, Amer M, AbdelHady A, Al-Azzizi H, Ismael E, Abdel-Gabbar M, Shamloul R. Lymphatic vessel hydrodissection during varicocelectomy. Urology. 2007 Jul;70(1):165-7. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.04.012.
Abd Ellatif ME, El Nakeeb A, Shoma AM, Abbas AE, Askar W, Noman N. Dye assisted lymphatic sparing subinguinal varicocelectomy. A prospective randomized study. Int J Surg. 2011;9(8):626-31. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.07.430. Epub 2011 Aug 23.
Related Links
Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.
mansoura university
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
varicocele
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id