Effectiveness comparison between inguinal and subinguinal surgical approaches of microscopic varicocelectomy for painful varicocele

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2017.01.015

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To compare the effectiveness and operative time between inguinal and subinguinal surgical approaches of microscopic varicocelectomy for painful varicocele.

Methods

Sixty-eight patients with painful varicocele in the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, between July 2011 and June 2013 were divided into 2 groups of inguinal and subinguinal microscopic varicocelectomy. Operative time was recorded. Painful release rate, postoperative uncomfortable rate, relapse rate and complications were followed up.

Results

The operative time of inguinal and subinguinal microscopic varicocelectomy were (31±6) min vs (36±8) min, (P<0.05). There was no sinificant difference of painful release rate(94.1% vs 97.1%, P=1.000), postoperative uncomfortable rate (14.7% vs 5.9%, P=0.427), relapse rate(5.9% vs 2.9%, P=1.000), scrotal edema (0% vs 2.9%, P=1.000) and testicular atrothy(0% vs 0%, P=1.000) between the 2 groups.

Conclusion

Inguinal and subinguinal microscopic varicocelectomy are both effective for painful varicocele treatment, and the time-consuming of coinguinal approach seems shorter.

Key words: Varicocele, Scrotal pain, Inguinal, Subinguinal

Jianfeng Su, Yan Zhang, Xiaojian Yang, Hao Zhang. Effectiveness comparison between inguinal and subinguinal surgical approaches of microscopic varicocelectomy for painful varicocele[J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2017, 11(01): 62-65.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhqjmnmwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2017.01.015

https://zhqjmnmwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2017/V11/I01/62

Figures/Tables 3

References 19

[1]	Dohle GR, Glassberg KI. How common are varicocoeles? New data on the prevalence in adolescence and new discussions[J]. Andrology, 2013, 1(5): 661-662.
[2]	Fine RG, Poppas DP. Varicocele: standard and alternative indications for repair[J]. Curr Opin Urol, 2012, 22(6): 513-516.
[3]	Baazeem A, Belzile E, Ciampi A, et al. Varicocele and male factor infertility treatment: a new meta-analysis and review of the role of varicocele repair[J]. Eur Urol, 2011, 60(4): 796-808.
[4]	Will MA, Swain J, Fode M, et al. The great debate: varicocele treatment and impact on fertility[J]. Fertil Steril, 2011, 95(3): 841-852.
[5]	Kim HT, Song PH, Moon KH. Microsurgical ligation for painful varicocele: effectiveness and predictors of pain resolution[J]. Yonsei Med J, 2012, 53(1): 145-150.
[6]	Kim SO, Jung H, Park K. Outcomes of microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy for painful varicoceles[J]. J Androl, 2012, 33(5): 872-875.
[7]	Park HJ, Lee SS, Park NC. Predictors of pain resolution after varicocelectomy for painful varicocele[J]. Asian J Androl, 2011, 13(5): 754-758.
[8]	Liu X, Zhang H, Ruan X, et al. Macroscopic and microsurgical varicocelectomy: what's the intraoperative difference?[J]. World J Urol, 2013, 31(3): 603-608.
[9]	Al-Kandari AM, Shabaan H, Ibrahim HM, et al. Comparison of outcomes of different varicocelectomy techniques: open inguinal, laparoscopic, and subinguinal microscopic varicocelectomy: a randomized clinical trial[J]. Urology, 2007, 69(3): 417-420.
[10]	Zhang H, Liu XP, Yang XJ, et al. Loupe-assisted versus microscopic varicocelectomy: is there an intraoperative anatomic difference?[J]. Asian J Androl, 2013, 16(1): 112-114.
[11]	Choi WS, Kim SW. Current issues in varicocele management: a review[J]. World J Mens Health, 2013, 31(1): 12-20.
[12]	涂响安，赵良运，赵亮，等.精素静脉曲张性慢性睾丸痛的显微外科治疗[J].中华显微外科杂志, 2013, 36(4): 409-410.
[13]	Armaĝan A, Ergün O, Bas E, et al. Long-term effects of microsurgical varicocelectomy on pain and sperm parameters in clinical varicocele patients with scrotal pain complaints[J]. Andrologia, 2012, 44(Suppl 1): 611-614.
[14]	史庆，祝海，王新生，等.显微镜下精索静脉曲张3种手术效果的对比研究(附120例报告)[J].中华男科学杂志, 2013, 19(10): 931-934.
[15]	Pan F, Pan L, Zhang A, et al. Comparison of two approaches in microsurgical varicocelectomy in Chinese infertile males[J]. Urol Int, 2013, 90(4): 443-448.
[16]	Hopps CV, Lemer ML, Schlegel PN, et al. Intraoperative varicocele anatomy: a microscopic study of the inguinal versus subinguinal approach[J]. J Urol, 2003, 170(6 Pt 1): 2366-2370.
[17]	张炎，黄文涛，杨补，等.传统经腹股沟、显微技术和腹腔镜精索静脉结扎术后并发症发生率的对比研究[J/CD].中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志：电子版, 2008, 2(4): 345-347.
[18]	张炎，黄文涛，高新，等.横向双针套叠显微输精管附睾管吻合术治疗梗阻性无精症[J/CD].中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志：电子版, 2009, 3(2): 154-156.
[19]	Chen SS. Factors predicting symptomatic relief by varicocelectomy in patients with normospermia and painful varicocele nonresponsive to conservative treatment[J]. Urology, 2012, 80(3): 585-589.

组别	例数	年龄（岁，±s）	单双侧（例）		精索静脉曲张分度（例）			疼痛性质（例）			术前疼痛时间（月，±s）
组别	例数	年龄（岁，±s）	左侧	双侧	I度	II度	III度	隐痛或钝痛	坠胀痛	疼痛	术前疼痛时间（月，±s）
显微技术经腹股沟途径	34	27±7	27	7	2	10	22	15	18	1	17±16
显微技术经腹股沟下途径	34	28±7	28	6	1	13	20	6	24	4	15±14
统计值	?	t=0.5	χ²=0.095		Z=-0.374			χ²=6.514			t=0.548
P值	?	0.558	0.758		0.708			0.038			0.585

组别	例数	年龄（岁，±s）	单双侧（例）		精索静脉曲张分度（例）			疼痛性质（例）			术前疼痛时间（月，±s）
组别	例数	年龄（岁，±s）	左侧	双侧	I度	II度	III度	隐痛或钝痛	坠胀痛	疼痛	术前疼痛时间（月，±s）
显微技术经腹股沟途径	34	27±7	27	7	2	10	22	15	18	1	17±16
显微技术经腹股沟下途径	34	28±7	28	6	1	13	20	6	24	4	15±14
统计值	?	t=0.5	χ²=0.095		Z=-0.374			χ²=6.514			t=0.548
P值	?	0.558	0.758		0.708			0.038			0.585

组别	例数	术前评分（分，±s）	术后评分（分，±s）	缓解率[例（%）]	完全缓解率[例（%）]
显微技术经腹股沟途径组	34	4.0±0.9	0.6±0.9	32（94.1）	19（55.9）
显微技术经腹股沟下途径组	34	4.2±0.9	0.7±1.0	33（97.1）	20（58.8）
统计值	?	t=0.916	t=0.433	?	χ²=0.060
P值	?	0.363	0.666	1.000	0.806

组别	例数	术前评分（分，±s）	术后评分（分，±s）	缓解率[例（%）]	完全缓解率[例（%）]
显微技术经腹股沟途径组	34	4.0±0.9	0.6±0.9	32（94.1）	19（55.9）
显微技术经腹股沟下途径组	34	4.2±0.9	0.7±1.0	33（97.1）	20（58.8）
统计值	?	t=0.916	t=0.433	?	χ²=0.060
P值	?	0.363	0.666	1.000	0.806

组别	例数	手术时间（min，±s）	术后伤口不适[例（%）]	术后复发率[例（%）]	术后阴囊水肿[例（%）]	术后睾丸萎缩[例（%）]
显微技术经腹股沟途径组	34	31±6	5（14.7）	2（5.9）	0（0）	0（0）
显微技术经腹股沟下途径组	34	36±8	2（5.9）	1（2.9）	1（2.9）	0（0）
统计值	?	t=2.915	?	?	?	?
P值	?	0.005	0.427	1.000	1.000	1.000

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export