Literature DB >> 15302494

Laparoscopic varicocele ligation: are there advantages compared with the microscopic subinguinal approach?

Michael C McManus1, Albaha Barqawi, Randall B Meacham, Peter D Furness, Martin A Koyle.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the operative time, outcome, complications, and patient costs between laparoscopic varicocele ligation (LVL) and subinguinal microscopic varicocelectomy (SMV) in two patient cohorts. Varicocele therapy is a controversial issue, with no single approach adopted as the best therapeutic option. LVL has been considered more expensive and of no proven benefit compared with SMV.
METHODS: We compared two groups of patients who underwent surgical correction of varicocele at our institutions during a 6-year period. Group 1 included postpubertal adolescents who underwent LVL and group 2 included adults seen at an infertility practice who underwent SMV. The outcome measures selected included operative time, direct hospital costs to the patient, and negative outcomes.
RESULTS: We identified a total of 72 patients, 36 (mean age 13.8 years) in group 1 and 36 (mean age 34.1 years) in group 2. Group 1 had no persistent or recurrent varicoceles compared with 4 patients in group 2. Three men in group 2 required emergency room evaluation and no patient did so in group 1. No hydroceles developed in group 2, but three developed in group 1.
CONCLUSIONS: LVL resulted in shorter operative times and fewer negative outcomes compared with SMV. This translated into lower direct patient costs for LVL. For those who have mastered laparoscopic techniques, LVL should be considered a safe, cost-effective option in the correction of varicoceles.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15302494     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.03.055

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  9 in total

Review 1.  The adolescent varicocele: current issues.

Authors:  Kenneth I Glassberg
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) varicocelectomy with reusable components: comparison with the conventional laparoscopic technique.

Authors:  Frank Friedersdorff; Seven Johannes Aghdassi; Peter Werthemann; Hannes Cash; Irena Goranova; Jonas Felix Busch; Jan Ebbing; Stefan Hinz; Kurt Miller; Joerg Neymeyer; Tom Florian Fuller
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-04-03       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  [The position of laparoscopic surgery in pediatric urology].

Authors:  D Teber; S Subotic; M Schulze; C Stock; S Eskicorapci; J Rassweiler
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  Update on the management of adolescent varicocele.

Authors:  Kenneth I Glassberg; Ruslan Korets
Journal:  F1000 Med Rep       Date:  2010-04-12

5.  Management options of varicoceles.

Authors:  Peter Chan
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2011-01

Review 6.  Free radicals in adolescent varicocele testis.

Authors:  Carmelo Romeo; Giuseppe Santoro
Journal:  Oxid Med Cell Longev       Date:  2014-12-14       Impact factor: 6.543

Review 7.  Morphological and surgical overview of adolescent testis affected by varicocele.

Authors:  Giuseppe Santoro; Carmelo Romeo
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2013-11-20

Review 8.  Laparoendoscopic single-site varicocelectomy compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Tao Wu; Xi Duan; Xuesong Yang; Xianzhong Deng; Shu Cui
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2016-09-05

Review 9.  Comparison of surgical effect and postoperative patient experience between laparoendoscopic single-site and conventional laparoscopic varicocelectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zheng Zhang; Shu-Juan Zheng; Wen Yu; You-Feng Han; Hai Chen; Yun Chen; Yu-Tian Dai
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2017 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.285

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.