Literature DB >> 16286127

Inguinal versus subinguinal varicocele vein ligation using magnifying loupe under local anesthesia: which technique is preferable in clinical practice?

Paolo Gontero1, Giuliano Pretti, Francesco Fontana, Andrea Zitella, Giansilvio Marchioro, Bruno Frea.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the intraoperative results of inguinal versus subinguinal varicocelectomy using magnifying loupe, in terms of vein ligation and arterial preservation, recurrence rate, and patient tolerability.
METHODS: Ninety-nine patients were randomized to undergo a varicocele repair with an inguinal or a subinguinal approach under local anesthesia. Data concerning the number of veins ligated and arterial preservation were recorded during each procedure. The amount of intraoperative and postoperative pain was assessed by means of visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. The recurrence rate was documented by color Doppler ultrasound examination.
RESULTS: The average number of ligated veins was 5.6 with a subinguinal dissection and 4.4 with the inguinal approach. Inadvertent injury of the spermatic artery occurred in 6 of 47 subinguinal and 3 of 50 inguinal dissections; the artery could not be identified during 2 subinguinal and 1 inguinal dissection. Recurrent varicocele was detected in 8% and 14.9% of patients after an inguinal and a subinguinal approach, respectively. The intraoperative VAS score was significantly higher in the inguinal than in the subinguinal patients (P = 0.008).
CONCLUSIONS: In our hands, the inguinal approach to the spermatic cord showed a trend toward an easier preservation of the artery and a reduced incidence of persistent pathologic vein reflux. The subinguinal approach had a lower degree of intraoperative pain. On the whole, an inguinal repair might be preferable when magnifying loupe are used for varicocelectomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16286127     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.05.009

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


  21 in total

1.  Dr. Zini's rebuttal.

Authors:  Armand Zini
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Varicocelectomy: microsurgical subinguinal technique is the treatment of choice.

Authors:  Armand Zini
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  Varicocelectomy: microsurgical inguinal varicocelectomy is the treatment of choice.

Authors:  Saleh Binsaleh; Kirk C Lo
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 4.  Varicocele.

Authors:  Rebecca Macleod; Chandra Shekhar Biyani; Jon Cartledge; Ian Eardley
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2015-07-13

5.  A comparison between the efficacy and safety of microscopic inguinal and subinguinal varicocelectomy.

Authors:  Şaban Oğuz Demirdöğen; Fatih Özkaya; Ahmet Emre Cinislioğlu; Mehmet Sefa Altay; Şenol Adanur; Özkan Polat; İsa Özbey
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2019-07-01

Review 6.  The Varicocele: Clinical Presentation, Evaluation, and Surgical Management.

Authors:  Jason R Lomboy; Robert M Coward
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.513

Review 7.  Varicocele.

Authors:  Chandra Shekhar Biyani; Jon Cartledge; Günter Janetschek
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2009-01-06

8.  Effect of varicocoelectomy on seminal fluid parameters.

Authors:  C C Anyadike; O N Ekeke; N Eke
Journal:  J West Afr Coll Surg       Date:  2016 Jul-Sep

Review 9.  Who will benefit from surgical repair for painful varicocele: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Da-Yu Han; Qi-Yun Yang; Xu Chen; Bin Ouyang; Bing Yao; Gui-Hua Liu; Heng Zhang; Kai Xia; Chun-Hua Deng; Xiang-Zhou Sun
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2016-04-13       Impact factor: 2.370

10.  Management options of varicoceles.

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

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.