Advertisement

International Urology and Nephrology

, Volume 48, Issue 9, pp 1395–1399 | Cite as

Varicocele percutaneous embolization outcomes in a pediatric group: 7-year retrospective study

  • Sonaz MalekzadehEmail author
  • Rodrigo A. Fraga-Silva
  • Pierre-Henri Morère
  • Alexandra Sorega
  • Stephan Produit
  • Nikolaos Stergiopulos
  • Christophe Constantin
Urology - Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

Percutaneous embolization and surgical repair are the current treatment options for varicocele, but determining method superiority remains controversial. In this retrospective study, we evaluate the technical success, complication and recurrence rates following percutaneous embolization in a pediatric group, which were compared to reported outcomes for surgical repairs.

Methods

Thirty children treated for percutaneous varicocele embolization were recruited. The side and grade of varicocele, symptoms, testicular asymmetry, mean recurrence time, total radiation dose and complications were evaluated. Recurrence and follow-up complications due to embolization were also reviewed.

Results

The venography showed retrograde filling of the internal spermatic vein with the identification of aberrantly fed vessels in 23 % of patients. None of the patients suffered from procedure complications except one who had venous injury which was treated with a sclerosing agent. The technical success rate was 93 % (28 patients) with a recurrence rate of 13 % (4 patients). Interestingly, the mean radiation dose used was 862.5 µGy m2, 3 times lower than abdominal CT.

Conclusion

Considering the intravascular nature of embolization, which aims to avoid testicular artery and spermatic cord damage (difficult to avoid with the surgical method), and consequently a lower complication rate, along with the same success rate and recurrence rate, our study supports that embolization is a superior method to surgical interventions.

Keywords

Varicocele Percutaneous embolization Venography Varicocelectomy Pampiniform venous plexus 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical standard

This study was approved by the local ethical committee of the Sion Hospital, Sion, Switzerland, and is in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration.

Conflict of interest

The authors certify that they have no conflict of interest and are not affiliated or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Akbay E, Cayan S, Doruk E, Duce MN, Bozlu M (2000) The prevalence of varicocele and varicocele-related testicular atrophy in turkish children and adolescents. BJU Int 86:490–493CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dubin L, Amelar RD (1970) Varicocele size and results of varicocelectomy in selected subfertile men with varicocele. Fertil Steril 21:606–609CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ahlberg NE, Bartley O, Chidekel N, Fritjofsson A (1966) Phlebography in varicocele scroti. Acta Radiol Diagn 4:517–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kass EJ (1988) Adolescent varicocele: current concepts. Semin Urol 6:140–145PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sigman M, Jarow JP (1997) Ipsilateral testicular hypotrophy is associated with decreased sperm counts in infertile men with varicoceles. J Urol 158:605–607CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haans LC, Laven JS, Mali WP, te Velde ER, Wensing CJ (1991) Testis volumes, semen quality, and hormonal patterns in adolescents with and without a varicocele. Fertil Steril 56:731–736CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castro-Magana M, Angulo MA, Canas JA, Uy JS (1989) Improvement of leydig cell function in male adolescents after varicocelectomy. J Pediatr 115:809–812CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Agger P (1971) Scrotal and testicular temperature: its relation to sperm count before and after operation for varicocele. Fertil Steril 22:286–297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Okuyama A, Nakamura M, Namiki M, Takeyama M, Utsunomiya M, Fujioka H, Itatani H, Matsuda M, Matsumoto K, Sonoda T (1988) Surgical repair of varicocele at puberty: preventive treatment for fertility improvement. J Urol 139:562–564PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sivanathan C, Abernethy LJ (2003) Retrograde embolisation of varicocele in the paediatric age group: a review of 10 years’ practice. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 85:50–51CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Diamond DA, Gargollo PC, Caldamone AA (2011) Current management principles for adolescent varicocele. Fertil Steril 96:1294–1298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tapiovaara M, Siiskonen T (2008) Pcxmc 2.0Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Steeno OP (1991) Varicocele in the adolescent. Adv Exp Med Biol 286:295–321PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walsh PC, White RI Jr (1981) Balloon occlusion of the internal spermatic vein for the treatment of varicoceles. JAMA 246:1701–1702CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alqahtani A, Yazbeck S, Dubois J, Garel L (2002) Percutaneous embolization of varicocele in children: a canadian experience. J Pediatr Surg 37:783–785CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tjia TT, Rumping WJ, Landman GH, Cobben JJ (1982) Phlebography of the internal spermatic vein (and the ovarian vein). Diagn Imaging 51(1):8–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marsman JW (1995) The aberrantly fed varicocele: frequency, venographic appearance, and results of transcatheter embolization. AJR Am J Roentgenol 164:649–657CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Niedzielski J, Paduch DA (2001) Recurrence of varicocele after high retroperitoneal repair: implications of intraoperative venography. J Urol 165:937–940CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    May M, Johannsen M, Beutner S, Helke C, Braun KP, Lein M, Roigas J, Hoschke B (2006) Laparoscopic surgery versus antegrade scrotal sclerotherapy: retrospective comparison of two different approaches for varicocele treatment. Eur Urol 49:384–387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pintus C, Rodriguez Matas MJ, Manzoni C, Nanni L, Perrelli L (2001) Varicocele in pediatric patients: comparative assessment of different therapeutic approaches. Urology 57:154–157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Esposito C, Monguzzi G, Gonzalez-Sabin MA, Rubino R, Montinaro L, Papparella A, Esposito G, Settimi A, Mastroianni L, Zamparelli M, Sacco R, Amici G, Damiano R, Innaro N (2001) Results and complications of laparoscopic surgery for pediatric varicocele. J Pediatr Surg 36:767–769CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Silveri M, Bassani F, Adorisio O (2015) Changing concepts in microsurgical pediatric varicocelectomy: is retroperitoneal approach better than subinguinal one? Urol J 12:2032–2035PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sigmund G, Bahren W, Gall H, Lenz M, Thon W (1987) Idiopathic varicoceles: feasibility of percutaneous sclerotherapy. Radiology 164:161–168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reyes BL, Trerotola SO, Venbrux AC, Savader SJ, Lund GB, Peppas DS, Mitchell SE, Gearhart JP, White RI Jr, Osterman FA Jr (1994) Percutaneous embolotherapy of adolescent varicocele: results and long-term follow-up. J Vasc Interven Radiol JVIR 5:131–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Storm DW, Hogan MJ, Jayanthi VR (2010) Initial experience with percutaneous selective embolization: a truly minimally invasive treatment of the adolescent varicocele with no risk of hydrocele development. J Pediatr Urol 6:567–571CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nabi G, Asterlings S, Greene DR, Marsh RL (2004) Percutaneous embolization of varicoceles: outcomes and correlation of semen improvement with pregnancy. Urology 63:359–363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cassidy D, Jarvi K, Grober E, Lo K. Varicocele surgery or embolization: which is better? Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l’Association des urologues du Canada. 2012;6:266-268Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li X, Samei E, Segars WP, Sturgeon GM, Colsher JG, Toncheva G, Yoshizumi TT, Frush DP (2011) Patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk estimation in ct: part ii. Appl Patients Med Phys 38:408–419Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alzen G, Benz-Bohm G (2011) Radiation protection in pediatric radiology. Dtsch Arztebl Int 108:407–414PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sonaz Malekzadeh
    • 1
    • 5
    Email author
  • Rodrigo A. Fraga-Silva
    • 2
  • Pierre-Henri Morère
    • 1
  • Alexandra Sorega
    • 1
  • Stephan Produit
    • 3
  • Nikolaos Stergiopulos
    • 2
  • Christophe Constantin
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of RadiologySion HospitalSionSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute of BioengineeringÉcole Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of Pediatric SurgerySion HospitalSionSwitzerland
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyGeneva HospitalGenevaSwitzerland
  5. 5.Service d’imagerie diagnostique et interventionnelleCentre Hospitalier du Centre du ValaisSionSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations