Preclinical study demonstrates therapeutic ultrasound improves cytokine profiles and tissue repair in rat orchitis, highlighting a noninvasive alternative to antibiotic therapy.
Background & Objective: Orchitis is a testicular inflammatory disorder that may impair spermatogenesis and compromise male fertility. Although fluoroquinolones are widely used in infectious orchitis and possess ancillary anti-inflammatory properties, concerns remain regarding their potential reproductive toxicity. Therapeutic ultrasound has emerged as a noninvasive modality with anti-inflammatory and tissue-modulating effects, but its role in testicular inflammation remains poorly characterized. Methods: This study evaluated the anti-inflammatory and tissue-protective effects of levofloxacin and therapeutic ultrasound in a rat model of lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced orchitis. Twenty-four adult male albino rats were allocated into four groups: control, untreated orchitis, levofloxacin-treated orchitis, and ultrasound-treated orchitis. Serum CRP, IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α, IFN-γ, and IL-10 levels were measured. Testicular weight and histopathological alterations were also evaluated. Results: LPS-induced orchitis significantly increased testicular weight and proinflammatory markers while reducing IL-10 levels (P < 0.05), accompanied by marked histopathological damage. Both treatments significantly reduced IL-1β levels (P < 0.0001). Therapeutic ultrasound produced greater reductions in CRP (P < 0.01) and IFN-γ (P < 0.05) and significantly restored IL-10 levels compared with levofloxacin (P = 0.035). Levofloxacin significantly reduced testicular weight (P < 0.01), whereas ultrasound was associated with an improved histopathological appearance. Conclusion: Both interventions attenuated inflammatory alterations in the LPS-induced sterile orchitis model. Therapeutic ultrasound demonstrated more favorable cytokine modulation and histopathological findings than levofloxacin. However, the absence of a sham-ultrasound group and the lack of reproductive functional endpoints warrant cautious interpretation and further validation before clinical translation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Elfar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: