PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Purpose:
We wanted to compare our experience and results with three different methods of treatment for varicocele.
Materials and Methods:
Between January 1995 and December 2005, 154 patients with varicocele were retrospectively assigned into three groups according to the method of treatment. Group 1 included 73 patients who were treated by the retroperitoneal approach of Palomo's technique. Group 2 consisted of 37 patients who were treated by the retroperitoneal approach and who also underwent the internal spermatic artery preserving technique, and in group 3, 44 patients were treated by the microscopic inguinal approach of Ivanissevich's technique. We analyzed the operation time, recurrence, complications, the effect of surgical treatment and the results according to the surgical techniques.
Results:
The mean operative time of group 3 was significantly longer among the three groups. The recurrence rate at follow-up was not significantly different among the three groups. The recurrence rate increased progressively with the increase of varicocles size from grade I to grade III for all the groups. The overall incidence of postoperative complications was significantly lower among the patients in group III. The postoperative spermiogram showed an increase in motility and sperm count for all the groups. There were no differences in the three techniques for resolution of pain, the duration of recovery and the spermiogram results.
Conclusions:
There was no significant difference in the rate of relapse after the surgery between the three different treatment techniques, and the factors involved in relapse were more related to the size and severity of the varicocele. Microsurgical varicocelectomy had a disadvantage of a prolonged operation time. However, there was a low rate of postoperative complications for all three techniques. (Korean J Urol 2006;47:1086-1092)
REFERENCES
1.Woild Health Organization. The influence of varicocele on parameters of fertility in a large group of men presenting to infertility clinics. Fertil Steril. 1992. 57:1289–93.
2.Kim KH., Ha DB., Lee KS. Prevalence of varicocele in aldolescents and effect of varicocele on testicular volume. Korean J Urol. 2003. 44:45–8.
3.Pinto KJ., Kroovand RL., Jarow JP. Varicocele related testicular atrophy and it' s predictive effect upon fertility. J Urol. 1994. 152:788–90.
4.Gorlelick JI., Goldstein M. Loss of fertility in men with varicocele. Fertil Steril. 1993. 59:613–6.
5.Palmo A. Radical cures of varicocele by to new technique: preliminary report. J Urol. 1949. 61:604.
6.Kass EJ., Marcol B. Results of varicocele surgery in adolescents: a comparison of techniques. J Urol. 1992. 148:694–6.
7.Ivanissevich O. Left varicocele due to reflux: experience widi 4, 470 operative cases in forty-two years. J Int Coll Surg. 1960. 34:742–55.
8.Goldstein M., Gilbert BR., Dicker AP., Dwosh J., Gnccco C. Microsurgical inguinal varicocelectomy with delivery of the testis: an artery and lymphatic sparing technique. J Urol. 1992. 148:1808–11.
9.Mannar JL., Kim Y. Subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy: a technical critique and statistical analysis of semen and pregnancy data. J Urol. 1994. 152:1127–32.
10.Hirsch IR., Abdel-Meguid TA., Gomella LG. Postsurgical outcomes assessment following varicocele ligation: laparoscopic versus subinguinal approach. Urology. 1998. 51:810–5.
11.Dubin L., Amelar RD. Varicocele size and results of varicocelectomy in selected subfertile men with varicocele. Fertil Steril. 1970. 21:606–9.
12.Park JR., Prak CH., Kim Cl., Kim HS., Lee SC. Results of varicocele surgery according to operative technique. The Korean J Androl. 1999. 17:127–30.
13.Kim JM., Kim YH., Jeon YS., Kim ME., Lee NK., Park YH. Varicocele: should internal spermatic artery be ligated? Korean J Urol. 2001. 42:1195–8.
14.Cayan S., Kadioglu TC., Tefekli A., Kadioglu A., Tellaloglu S. Comparison of results and complications of high ligation surgery and microsurgical high inguinal varicocelcetomy in die treatment of varicocele. Urology. 2000. 55:750–4.
15.Amelar RD. Early and late complications of inguinal varicocelctomy. J Urol. 2003. 170:366–9.
16.Ghanem H., Anis T., El-Nashar A., Shamloul R. Subinguinal microvaricocelectomy versus retroperitoneal varicocelectomy: comparative study of complications and surgical outcome. Urology. 2004. 64:1005–9.
17.Kumar R., Gupta NP. Subinguinal microsurgical varicocelctomy: evaluation of the results. Urol Int. 2003. 71:368–72.
18.Riccabona M., Oswald J., Koen M. Optimizing the operative treatment of boys with varicocele: sequential comparison of 4 techniques. J Urol. 2003. 169:666–8.
19.Minevich E., Wacksman J., Lewis AG., Sheldon CA. Inguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy in adolescent: technique and preliminary results. J Urol. 1998. 159:1022–4.
20.Murray RR Jr., Mitchell SE., Kadir S., Kaufman SL., Chang R., Kirmison ML, et al. Comparison of recurrent varicocele anatomy following surgery and percutaneous balloon occlusion. J Urol. 1986. 135:286–9.
21.Hopps CV., Lemer ML., Schlegel PN., Goldstein M. llntraoperative varicocele anatomy: a microsurgical study of the inguinal versus subinguinal approach. J Urol. 2003. 170:2366–70.
22.Watanabe M., Nagai A., Kusumi N., Tsuboi H., Nasu Y., Kumon H. Minimal invasiveness and effectivity of subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy: a comparative study with retroperitoneal high and laparoscopic approaches. Int J Urol. 2005. 12:892–8.
23.Silveri M., Adorisio O., Pane A., Colajacomo M., De Gennaro M. Subinguinal microsurgical ligation - its effectiveness in pediatric and adolescent varicocele. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2003. 37:53–4.
24.Burke P., Manenti M., Milanesio L., Peris C. Spermatic phlebography and sclerotherapy of the male varicocele. Radiol Med (Torino). 1996. 92:279–82.
25.Abdulmaaboud MR., Shokeir AA., Farage Y., El-rahman AA., El-Rakhawy MM., Mutabagani H. Treatment of varicocele: a comparative study of conventional open surgery, percutaneous retrograde sclerotherapy, and laparoscopy. Urology. 1998. 52:294–300.
26.Gontero P., Pretti G., Fontana F., Zitella A., Marchioro G., Frea B. Inguinal versus subinguinal varicocele vein ligation using magnifying loupe under local anesthesia: Which technique is preferable in clinical practice? Urology. 2005. 66:1075–9.
27.Yamamoto M., Tsuji Y., Ohmura M., Hibi H., Miyake K. Comparison of artery-ligating and artery-preserving varicocelectomy: effect on post operative spermatogenesis. Andrologia. 1995. 27:37–40.
28.Ross LS., Ruppman N. Varicocele vein ligation in 565 patients under local anesthesia: a long-term review of technique, results and complications in light of purposed management by laparoscopy. J Urol. 1993. 149:1361–3.
29.Ryu DS., Chong CH., Oh TH. The effectiveness of varicocelectomy in patients with painful varicocele. Korean J Urol. 2001. 42:1191–4.
30.Shin JW., Kim SW., Paick JS. Effects of varicocele treatments in adolescents: changes of semen parameters after early varicocelectomy. Korean J Urol. 2005. 46:481–6.
Table 1.
Characteristics of the patients by groups
Table 2.
Summary of the results at follow-up
Table 3.
Recurrence rate vs. the grade of varicocele
| Group | Recurrence/No. of varicoceles | p-value∗ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade I | Grade II | Grade III | ||
| 1 | 1/16 (6.3) | 3/29 (10.3) | 4/28 (14.3) | <0.05 |
| 2 | 0/12 (0) | 2/14 (14.3) | 3/12 (25) | <0.05 |
| 3 | 0/14 (0) | 1/16 (6.3) | 3/15 (20) | <0.05 |
Table 4.
The scrotal pain resolution rate
| Group1 (n=32) | Group2 (n=17) | Group3 (n=16) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complete resolution | 25/32 (78.1) | 12/17 (70.6) | 12/16 (75) |
| Partially resolution | 6/32 (18.8) | 2/17(11.8) | 3/16 (18.8) |
| Unchanged | 1/32 (3.1) | 3/17 (17.6) | 1/16 (6.3) |
Table 5.
Spermiogram of the subinfertile patients at follow-up (mean土 SD)
XML Download