Microsurgical varicocelectomy in children and adolescents: prospective comparison of laparoscopic and open subinguinal repair
Authors:
Radim Kočvara 1; Josef Sedláček 1; Zdeněk Dítě 1; Jaroslav Zvěřina 2; Jana Zvárová 3; Jan Dvořáček 1
Authors place of work:
Urologická klinika 1. LF UK a VFN, Praha
1; Sexuologický ústav 1. LF UK a VFN, Praha
2; EuroMISE centrum, Ústav informatiky AV
ČR v. v. i., Praha
3
Published in the journal:
Ces Urol 2010; 14(3): 148-155
Category:
Original article
Summary
Aim:
To compare outcome of microsurgical varicocelectomy performed by laparoscopy or open using microscope.
Material and methods:
Patients (< 18 years old) with unilateral varicocele grade II–III have been randomly assigned to laparoscopic microsurgical repair (Group L) or to subinguinal microscopic repair (Group M). The research protocol contained age, pubertal stage, testicular size, blood level of LH, FSH and testosterone; spermiogram; surgical details and postoperative course were studied. For final evaluation, patients with minimal follow up of one year were selected (57 in group L, 69 in group M).
Results:
After ∅ 2-year follow up, clinical, hormonal and spermiologic parameters from both groups did not differ significantly. Testicular hypoplasia persisted in 59.4% of patients in Group L and in 50% in Group M. In the laparoscopic repair, length of surgery was ∅ 75 min, in the microscopic repair ∅ 110 min. (after technical modification 99 min) (p = 0.0001); number of divided veins was ∅ 6 and ∅ 13, respectively (p = 0.0001), and periarterial venous network was found in 74% and 94% of patients, respectively. Parenteral analgesia (mostly one injection) was required in 42% of patients in Group L and in 15% of Group M (p = 0.00106). Varicocele persisted in 5.8% (after modification in 3.3%) in Group M, in no patient in Group L.
Conclusion:
Clinical and andrological outcome of both microsurgical repairs is comparable. The laparoscopic repair is shorter with lower number of veins to be divided. The microscopic repair faces higher incidence of periarterial venous network, that must be dissected very safely, the postoperative analgesia is less. It is on the surgeon experience, which type of repair to use.
Key words:
varicocele in children and adolescents, lymphatic sparing varicocelectomy, microsurgical varicocelectomy, laparoscopic varicocelectomy.
Zdroje
1. Ficarra V, Cerruto MA, Liguori G, et al. Treatment of varicocele in subfertile men: the Cochrane review – a contrary opinion. Eur Urol 2006; 49: 258–263.
2. Cayan S, Kadioglu TC, Tefekli A, Kadioglu A, Tellaloglu S. Comparison of results and complications of high ligation surgery and microsurgical high varicocelectomy in the treatment of varicocele. Urology 2000; 55: 750–754.
3. Feber KM, Kass EJ. Varicocelectomy in adolescent boys: long-term experience with the Palomo procedure. J Urol 2008; 180(Suppl 4): 1657–1659.
4. Husár M, Zerhau P, Tůma J, Macháček R, Hnilička B. Laparoskopické operace varikokély v dětském a adolescentním věku – naše zkušenosti s 202 pacienty. Rozhl Chir 2006; 85: 498–500.
5. Richter F, Stock JA, LaSalle M, Sadeghi-Nejad H, Hanna MK. Management of prepubertal varicoceles-results of questionnaire study among pediatric urologists and urologists with infertility training. Urology 2001; 58: 98–102.
6. Gershbein AB, Horowitz M, Glassberg KI. The adolescent varicocele I: Left testicular hypertrophy following varicocelectomy. J Urol 1999; 162: 1447–1449.
7. Kočvara R, Doležal J, Hampl R, et al. Division of lymphatic vessels at varicocelectomy leads to testicular oedema and decline in testicular function according to the LH-RH analogue stimulation test. Eur Urol 2003; 43: 430–435.
8. Goldstein M, Gilbert BR, Dicker AP, Dwosh J, Gnecco C. Microsurgical inguinal varicocelectomy with delivery of the testis: An artery and lymphatic sparing technique. J Urol 1992; 148: 1808–1811.
9. Kočárek J, Köhler O, Režnar P, et al. Mikrovarikokélektomie – moderní léčba varikokély. Urologie pro praxi 2005; 6: 47–49.
10. Novák I, Fiala R, Pacovský J, et al. Současné chirurgické přístupy k léčbě varikokély. Urologie pro praxi 2009; 10: 66–68.
11. Pacík D, Turjanica M. Výsledky mikrochirurgické varikokélektomie (soubor 97 pacientů). Čes Urol 2001; 5: 44–46.
12. Hopps CV, Lemer ML, Schlegel PN, Goldstein M. Intraoperative varicocele anatomy: a microscopic study of the inguinal versus subinguinal approach. J Urol 2003; 170: 2366–2370.
13. Chan PTK, Wright EJ, Goldstein M. Incidence and postoperative outcomes of accidental ligation of the testicular artery during microsurgical varicocelectomy. J Urol 2005; 173: 482–484.
14. Diamond DA, Xuewu J, Cilento Jr BG, et al. Varicocele surgery: a decade‘s experience at a children‘s hospital. BJU Int 2008; 104: 246–249.
15. Kočvara R, Dvořáček J, Sedláček J, Dítě Z. Lymphatic-sparing laparoscopic varicocelectomy: a microsurgical repair. J Urol 2005; 173: 1751–1754.
16. Glassberg KI, Poon SA, Gjerson CK, DeCastro CJ, Misseri R. Laparoscopic lymphatic sparing varicocelectomy in adolescents. J Urol 2008; 180: 326–331.
17. Schiff J, Kelly C, Goldstein M, Schelgel P, Poppas D. Managing varicoceles in children: results with microsurgical varicocelectomy. BJU Int 2005; 95: 399–402.
18. Kočvara R, Sedláček J, Doležal J, et al. Mikrochirurgická subingvinální varikokélektomie u dětí a dospívajících. Čas Lék čes 2007; 146: 763–766.
19. 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: 1075–1079.
20. Zaupa P, Mayr J, Hollwarth ME. Antegrade scrotal sclerotherapy for treating primary varicocele in children. BJU Int 2006; 97: 809–812.
21. Študent V, Záťura F, Scheinar J, Vrtal R, Vrána J. Testicle hemodynamics in patients after laparoscopic varicocelectomy evaluated using color Doppler sonography. Eur Urol 1998; 33: 91–93.
22. Zampieri N, Zuin V, Corroppolo M, et al. Varicocele and adolescents: semen quality after 2 different laparoscopic procedures. J Androl 2007; 28: 727–733.
23. Riccabona M, Oswald J, Koen M, et al. Optimizing the operative treatment of boy with varicocele: sequential comparison of 4 techniques. J Urol 2003; 169: 666–668.
24. VanderBrink BA, Palmer LS, Gitlin J, Levitt SB, Franco I. Lymphatic-sparing laparoscopic varicocelectomy versus microscopic varicocelectomy: is there a difference? Urology 2007; 70: 1207–1210.
Štítky
Paediatric urologist Nephrology UrologyČlánok vyšiel v časopise
Czech Urology
2010 Číslo 3
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Microsurgical varicocelectomy in children and adolescents: prospective comparison of laparoscopic and open subinguinal repair
- Our experience with shock waves therapy in patiens with Peyronie’s disease (average follow-up of 13 months)
- Position of magnetic resonance and magnetic resonance with spectroscopy in detection of prostate cancer
- Molecular characteristics of clinically significant prostate carcinoma