الفهرس 
introductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 95 |  |  |
| | | from | 95 | | |
Abstract
Varicocele was mentioned as a cause of male infertility as early as the 1880, by a British Surgeon named Barifield C Zorgniotti 1975 ). In 1929 Macomber and Sanders reported restoration of fertility in men following bitlateral varicosele surgery. However, it was not until Tullach’s report in 1952 of restored spermatogenesis in an azoospermic man with varicocele that real notice was taken of the problem.
It is signficant that, in general, therapeutic results in azoospermic men since that time have been poor ( Dubin 1969; Mehan 1976 and Stewart 1974 ) since Tullach’s work in the 1950 numerous reports of success following varicocele ligation have appeared in the literature.
The seminal picture seen in subfertile men with varicosele was described in 1965 by Maclead. Oligaspermia of varying degrees was noted, but of more importance were the signs of a marked impairment of the motility of the sperm and a definit increase of immature and tapering sperm forms in the ejaculum. Indeed, although the sperm count frequently improves following ligation of the varicosele, the response is often limited to an improvement in motility and a decrease in immature sperm form.
The reason that varicosele causes male infertility has not been completely elucidated. The possible responsible mechanisms include changed in the temperature of scrotum and testis, reduced oxygen tension, toxic metabolic products from adrenals or the kidney and venaus stasis which could impair spermatogenesis.
The aim of the work is to review in detail the work which has been done to reach the possible etiology of varicocele as a cause of mal infertility.
Also, it aims to study the differences in both semen picture and testicular biopsy before and after varicosele ligation in subfertile men.