Advertisement

Robot Assisted Vaso-Vasostomy and Inguinal Varicocele Repair

  • Georges A. de Boccard
Chapter

Abstract

The initial mistake before starting a robot assisted microsurgery program was to expect a haptic feedback from the instruments. This didn’t take into account the adaptation capacity of the human brain. The visual perception of the tension of the suture is in fact “felt” as tactile and replaces any need for a haptic feedback in the hands or fingers. This visual tactile feedback is already mastered by conventional microsurgeons. Even robot assisted macroscopic surgeons are now able to describe the hardness of a tissue while operating on tumors. Our microsurgical reconstruction program started in 2003 after we discovered the lack of tremor and the precise vision brought by the robot. The procedures were initially directly adapted from classical microsurgery. We first used 7/0 sutures, then shifted progressively down to 11/0 (http://www.gfmer.ch/Presentations_En/Robot_vasectomy_reversal_DeBoccard_2009.htm). In our opinion, the best suture sizes are 9/0 or 10/0. Many surgeons use nylon sutures, but we prefer polyglycolic acid ones since it does not induce reactions and does not leave any foreign material. The choice of the needle is very important according to the structure of the tissue but is left to the appreciation of the surgeon.

References

  1. 1.
    De Boccard G (2009) Robotic vasectomy reversal. Geneva Foundation for Medical Research. http://www.gfmer.ch/Presentations_En/Robot_vasectomy_reversal_DeBoccard_2009.htm
  2. 2.
    Kim HH, Goldstein M. History of vasectomy reversal. Urol Clin North Am. 2009;36:359–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Belker AM, Thomas AJ Jr, Fuchs EF, Konnak JW, Sharlip ID. Results of 1,469 microsurgical vasectomy reversals by the Vasovasostomy Study Group. J Urol. 1991;145(3):505–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schlegel PN, Goldstein M. Microsurgical vasoepididymostomy: refinements and results. J Urol. 1993;150(4):1165–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fleming C. Robot-assisted vasovasostomy. Urol Clin North Am. 2004;31(4):769–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schiff J, Li PS, Goldstein M. Robotic microsurgical vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy: a prospective randomized study in a rat model. J Urol. 2004;171(4):1720–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parekattil SJ, Gudeloglu A, Brahmbhatt J, Wharton J, Priola KB. Robotic assisted versus pure microsurgical vasectomy reversal: technique and prospective database control trial. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2012;28(7):435–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kavoussi PK. Validation of robot-assisted vasectomy reversal. Asian J Androl. 2015;17(2):245–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chan PT, Brandell RA, Goldstein M. Prospective analysis of outcomes after microsurgical intussusception vasoepididymostomy. BJU Int. 2005;96(4):598–601.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kumar RI, Mukherjee S, Gupta NP. Intussusception vasoepididymostomy with longitudinal suture placement for idiopathic obstructive azoospermia. J Urol. 2010;183(4):1489–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lucas H, Grenet C, de Boccard GA, Mieusset R, Durand P. Physiologie, pathologie et thérapie de la reproduction chez l’humain. In: Spermatogenèse-Cellules souches testiculaires-Reprotoxicité. Paris: Springer; 2011. p. 35–52.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Damsgaard J, Joensen UN, Carlsen E, Erenpreiss J, Blomberg Jensen M, Matulevicius V, Zilaitiene B, Olesen IA, Perheentupa A, Punab M, Salzbrunn A, Toppari J, Virtanen HE, Juul A, Skakkebæk NE, Jørgensen N. Varicocele is associated with impaired semen quality and reproductive hormone levels: a study of 7035 healthy young men from six European countries. Eur Urol. 2016;70(6):1019–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baazeem A, Belzile E, Ciampi A, Dohle G, Jarvi K, Salonia A, Weidner W, Zini A. Varicocele and male factor infertility treatment: a new meta-analysis and review of the role of varicocele repair. Eur Urol. 2011;60(4):796–808.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Matsuda T, Horii Y, Higashi S, Oishi K, Takeuchi H, Yoshida O. Laparoscopic varicocelectomy: a simple technique for clip ligation of the spermatic vessels. J Urol. 1992;147(3):636–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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(6):1808–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shu T, Taghechian S, Wang R. Initial experience with robot-assisted varicocelectomy. Asian J Androl. 2008;10(1):146–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parekattil SJ, Gudeloglu A. Robotic assisted andrological surgery. Asian J Androl. 2012;15(1):67–74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery CenterClinic Generale BeaulieuGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations