Table 2. Procedural outcomes of varicocele repair for pain.

Studies	Study type	Surgical methods (n)	Patients recruited (n)	Complete resolution of pain (%)	Improvement of pain (%)	Persistent pain (%)	Predictors of success	Note (n)
Peterson et al (1998) [5]	Retrospective	Inguinal or subinguinal (24)	35	86	89	11	Quality of pain	Wound infections (2), hydroceles (3), hematoma (1), loss of testicle (1)
		High ligation (10)
		Laparoscopic (1)
Yeniyol et al (2003) [23]	Retrospective	High inguinal ligation	87	83	92	8		Wound infection (6), hydrocele (5)
Tung et al (2004) [20]	Retrospective	Subinguinal	31	90	100	0		4 patients had both pain and infertility.
Karademir et al (2005) [21]	Retrospective	Inguinal or subinguinal	121	61	84	16	Presence of external spermatic vein and ligation of the vein	Symptoms worsened in a single case.
Abd Ellatif et al (2012) [22]	Prospective	High inguinal (37)	130	84	89	11		While waiting for surgery, 7 patients (4.6%) resolved their pain with conservative management.
		Subinguinal (93)						Hydrocele (4), wound infection (3), hematoma (1)
Maghraby (2002) [24]	Retrospective	Laparoscopic	58	84	94	6		Hydrocele (3), persistent varicocele (2)
Kachrilas et al (2014) [25]	Retrospective	Laparoscopic	48	88	98	2		Hydrocele (4), recurrences (5)
Yaman et al (2000) [15]	Retrospective	Subinguinal, microscopic	82	88	93	7	Grade of varicocele	Recurrences (2)
Chawla et al (2005) [29]	Retrospective	Subinguinal, microscopic	11	54	91	9
Altunoluk et al (2010) [35]	Retrospective	Subinguinal, microscopic	237	86	92	8	Duration of pain
Kim et al (2012) [30]	Retrospective	Inguinal, microscopic	81	72	91	9	Low pain score, quality of pain	Recurrence (1), no hydrocele, no testicular atrophy
Chen (2012) [16]	Retrospective	Subinguinal, microscopic	76	72		28	Number of ligated veins, preoperative pain score, longer duration of pain	Inclusion of only patients with left painful varicocele and normal semen quality
Park et al (2011) [31]	Retrospective	Inguinal or subinguinal, microscopic	53	53	94	6	Duration of pain