Abstract
Purpose
This study aimed to compare techniques and outcomes of robotic-assisted varicocelectomy (RAV) and laparoscopic varicocelectomy (LV).
Methods
The medical records of 40 patients, who received RAV and LV over a 2-year period, were retrospectively analyzed. Palomo lymphatic-sparing varicocelectomy using ICG fluorescence was adopted in all cases. Three 5-mm trocars were placed in LV, whereas four ports, three 8-mm and one 5-mm, were placed in RAV. The spermatic vessels were ligated using clips in LV and ligatures in RAV. The two groups were compared regarding patient baseline and operative outcomes.
Results
All patients, with median age of 14 years (range 11–17), had left grade 3 varicocele according to Dubin–Amelar. All were symptomatic and 33/40 (82.5%) presented left testicular hypotrophy. All procedures were completed without conversion. The average operative time was significantly shorter in LV [20 min (range 11–30)] than in RAV [34.5 min (range 30–46)] (p = 0.001). No significant differences regarding analgesic requirement and hospitalization were observed (p = 0.55). At long-term follow-up (30 months), no complications occurred in both groups. The cosmetic outcome was significantly better in LV than RAV at 6-month and 12-month evaluations (p = 0.001). The total cost was significantly lower in LV (1.587,07 €) compared to RAV (5.650,31 €) (p = 0.001).
Conclusion
RAV can be safely and effectively performed in pediatric patients, with the same excellent outcomes as conventional laparoscopic procedure. Laparoscopy has the advantages of faster surgery, smaller instruments, better cosmesis and lower cost than robotics. To date, laparoscopy remains preferable to robotics to treat pediatric varicocele.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Find the latest articles, discoveries, and news in related topics.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The incidence of varicocele in the healthy male population ranges between 8 and 16% [1]. It is one the most common surgical diseases identified in young men being evaluated for infertility [2]. The negative impact of varicocele on testicular function occurs mainly due to increased oxidative stress within the testicular parenchyma which is thought to be caused by scrotal hyperthermia, testicular hypoxia, and blood–testis barrier disruption [3, 4].
The reduction in testicular temperature after varicocele ligation can improve the fertility rate of these patients. Several studies published in the international literature have reported the significant benefits of surgical treatment of varicocele on semen parameters [5, 6].
Several surgical techniques are available to treat varicocele, using open surgery via inguinal or sub-inguinal approach or using minimally invasive surgery via retro-peritoneoscopic high ligation or laparoscopic ligation [7,8,9,10,11]. The main issue of laparoscopic approach is the high incidence of postoperative hydrocele due to lymphatics injury, reported in up to 20% of operated patients [12, 13]. Several studies recently demonstrated that laparoscopic lymphatic-sparing procedure using ICG can eliminate the risk of postoperative hydrocele [14,15,16,17]. While risks and benefits of various techniques have been described, the gold standard for varicocele repair in adolescents has not been clearly defined [18].
A recent systematic review and meta-analysis reported that the laparoscopic lymphatic-sparing technique is characterized by the lowest recurrence rate, incidence of hydrocele and other complications, and no reports of testicular atrophy [19]. In the recent years, robotic-assisted surgery is gaining popularity in the pediatric urology field [20]. Recently, the robotic approach has been described for adolescent varicocelectomy [21,22,23]. Robotics offers several advantages compared with laparoscopy, including faster learning curve, 3D-magnified vision, and better ergonomics to the surgeon [20].
Analyzing the international literature, no comparative studies between laparoscopic and robotic-assisted varicocelectomy (RAV) using ICG lymphatic-sparing technique are currently available.
This study aimed to compare techniques and outcomes of RAV and laparoscopic varicocelectomy (LV) in the pediatric population.
Materials and methods
The medical records of 40 patients undergoing surgical treatment of varicocele over the period June 2021 to June 2023 were retrospectively analyzed.
Patients were grouped according to the operative technique: 20 patients receiving RAV were enrolled in G1 and 20 patients undergoing LV in G2.
The surgical procedures were carried out by four independent surgeons, comprising two senior surgeons and two resident surgeons. The senior surgeons had extensive surgical experience, with over 500 laparoscopic procedures and nearly 50 robotic procedures performed annually, respectively. In contrast, the resident surgeons conducted approximately 100 laparoscopic procedures and fewer than 15 robotic procedures per year. Pre-operative work-up included clinical examination and Doppler scrotal ultrasound (US) to assess the degree of varicocele and the testicular volume in all patients.
Patient characteristics evaluated included age and weight, pre-operative degree of varicocele, symptoms, and testicular hypotrophy. Surgical parameters included operative time, intra- and postoperative complications, analgesic requirement, length of stay (LOS), postoperative hydrocele, varicocele recurrence, testicular catch-up growth, cosmetic outcome, and total costs. Operative time was calculated from positioning of sterile drapes till to closure of skin incisions. Postoperative complications were graded according to Clavien–Dindo classification [24]. Cosmetic outcome was scored at 6-month and 12-month follow-ups by two independent evaluating surgeons using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = worst; 2 = bad; 3 = fair; 4 = good; 5 = excellent). Follow-up included clinical examination at 1, 3, 6, 12 months and Doppler scrotal US at 12 months postoperatively.
The study received appropriate Institute Review Board (IRB) approval.
Operative technique
Surgical procedures were performed under general anesthesia with orotracheal intubation. Palomo high ligation of the spermatic bundle using the lymphatic-sparing technique with ICG fluorescence was performed either laparoscopically or robotically. Regarding ICG near-infrared fluorescence (NIRF), the IMAGE1 S™ Rubina® system, manufactured by KARL STORZ SE & Co. KG, Tuttlingen, Germany, was adopted to visualize ICG-NIRF images in LV. Firefly®, from Novadaq imaging system, the software integrated in the DA VINCI Xi Robot, was used for ICG-NIRF visualization in RAV. Regarding ports’ number, three 5-mm trocars were placed in LV. Conversely, four ports, including three 8-mm robotic and one 5-mm assistant laparoscopic, were placed in RAV.
The steps of procedure were the same in both approaches. The only difference was that the vessel ligation was performed using titanium metallic clips in LV and ligatures in RAV.
Video reproduces all steps of the robotic-assisted Palomo technique.
Statistical analysis
The two groups were compared regarding patient baseline and operative outcomes. Statistical analysis was carried out using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA), version 13.0. The associations between qualitative variables were measured by the χ2 test and the quantitative variables were measured with the parametric Student's t test. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
Median patient age at surgery was 14 years (range 11–17) and median body weight was 55.7 kg (range 29–85). All patients had left grade 3 varicocele according to Dubin–Amelar classification. All were symptomatic (testicular pain and/or discomfort) and 33/40 (82.5%) presented left testicular hypotrophy, defined as testicular size discrepancy of greater than 20% on scrotal US. No significant differences about patient baseline were found between G1 and G2 (Table 1).
All procedures were completed laparoscopically or robotically without any conversion or intra-operative complications. The average operative time was significantly shorter in G2 [20 min (range 11–30)] than in G1 [34.5 min (range 30–46)] (p = 0.001). No technical difficulties to identify and isolating vessels and spare lymphatics were found in both approaches. No adverse local or systemic reactions to ICG were observed.
The median analgesic requirement was 14.2 h (range 8–18), without significant differences between the two groups (p = 0.55). The median LOS was 20.6 h (range 10–26), without significant differences between the two groups (p = 0.55). All patients of both groups were able to resume daily activities on the same day of surgery and full activities within 2 postoperative weeks. At long-term follow-up (30 months), no complications or recurrence of varicocele occurred in both groups. No hematomas, infections, or hydroceles were noted. All patients reported resolution of pre-operative symptoms. Catch-up growth of the affected testicles was noted upon clinical examination and scrotal US in 31/33 (94%) boys who underwent surgery due to reduced testicular size, without significant differences between the two techniques (p = 0.33). The cosmetic outcome was significantly better in G2 than G1 at both 6-month and 12-month evaluations (p = 0.001) (Fig. 1). The total cost of the laparoscopic procedure was 1.587,07 euros (€) vs. 5.650,31 euros (€) of the robotic-assisted procedure (p = 0.001).
Operative outcomes in G1 and G2 are summarized in Table 2.
Discussion
Analyzing the international literature, it seems that the lymphatic-sparing Palomo procedure is the most adopted technique for treatment of adolescent varicocele [18]. Kass and Marcol [25] demonstrated that the Palomo technique resulted in a significant decrease in the operative failure rate compared to the artery sparing procedures and it should be the preferred technique for varicocele ligation in the adolescent.
As artery sparing varicocelectomy offered no advantage about catch-up growth and was associated with higher incidence of varicocele recurrence, preservation of the artery does not appear to be routinely necessary in adolescent varicocelectomy [26]. Other authors also suggested that the number of arteries identified and preserved with meticulous spermatic cord dissection does not correlate with improvement in semen parameters [27]. Conversely, LV with internal spermatic artery ligation can reduce the recurrence rate and results in the same catch-up growth rate in comparison with LV with spermatic artery preservation [28].
At beginning of experience, the main issue with laparoscopic Palomo procedure was the high incidence of postoperative hydrocele, due to non-selective ligation of the entire spermatic bundle, reported in up to 20% of operated patients [12, 13]. Anatomical studies showed that the mean number of lymphatics in the spermatic cord was around three on both sides [29]. Thus, to avoid risk of postoperative hydrocele, it is necessary to spare at least 1 or 2 lymphatics. Since then, lymphatic-sparing procedures have been adopted to decrease the risk of postoperative hydrocele. Different vital dyes and techniques have been described [17]. The most used dyes were isosulfan blue, first introduced by Chiarenza et al. [30] and indocyanine green (ICG), first described by Esposito et al. [14]. The method of administration of such vital dyes was through intratesticular injection.
In the recent years, robotic-assisted surgery using Da Vinci Xi robotic system has become an alternative to laparoscopy to perform lymphatic-sparing Palomo procedure using ICG-NIRF technology [21,22,23].
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comparative study between robot-assisted varicocelectomy and LV using ICG lymphatic-sparing technique.
This analysis showed that postoperative course and outcomes were similar in both groups. The postoperative pain and analgesic requirement were minimal and not significantly different between the 2 procedures. Conversely, the cosmetic outcome was significantly better for laparoscopic procedure rather than robotic-assisted one. The scars of robotic ports were bigger compared to laparoscopic scars (8-mm vs. 5-mm). Also, the number of scars was different between the two techniques (3 in LV vs. 4 in RAV).
Regarding the length of surgery, it was significantly longer in RAV than in LV. However, we must consider that the total operative time of robotic-assisted procedure also included docking time, which ranged between 10 and 20 min, according to the operating team’s experience.
The view of surgical field is much better in robotics, which provides 3-D vision and so as the ergonomics of the console surgeon, who is seated comfortably at robotic console. The ergonomics is not so equally better for the bedside surgeon, who fights with the robotic arms which cover completely the patient leaving a very small space of movement. Robotic platform is also an excellent training tool for young residents and trainees. The double console system allows the main surgeon to be seated at master control while the trainee is seated at the second console and performs the procedure under direct supervision. The findings of the study indicate that robotic surgery facilitated the transfer of surgical skills in minimally invasive techniques even to colleagues with limited laparoscopic and robotic experience.
Both laparoscopy and robotics allow use ICG-NIRF technology to perform real-time lymphography and effective lymphatic-sparing. Following the intra-parenchymal injection of 1 mL ICG solution, the lymphatics become fluorescent green in a matter of 30–60 s. However, after 10 min, we observed diffusion of ICG in spermatic veins and artery, making more difficult visualization of lymphatics. For this reason, the lymphatics dissection and sparing should be completed within 10 min. Lymphatics sparing usually required not more than 2–3 min in our experience. It is worth to perform adequate sparing of lymphatic vessel during ligation according to Palomo to improve surgical outcomes and mitigate the risk of postoperative hydrocele. In our experience, lymphatics sparing was achieved in all patients from both groups and no postoperative hydrocele was observed.
The main drawback of robotics remains the high cost. In our country, the total cost of the laparoscopic procedure was 1.587,07 euros (€) vs. 5.650,31 euros (€) of the robotic-assisted procedure (p = 0.001).
The main limitation of this study is the retrospective design. Furthermore, semen parameters were not assessed as most of our patients were younger than 17 years. Further prospective series, including investigation of semen parameters on an individual basis, may help serve as a further incentive for surgery in cases of reduced semen quality.
In conclusion, RAV can be safely and effectively performed in pediatric patients, with the same excellent outcomes as conventional laparoscopic procedure. Robotics provides additional technical benefits such hand tremor filtering, 3D-vision, and increased ergonomics. Laparoscopy has the advantages of faster surgery, smaller instruments, better cosmesis, and lower cost than robotics. To date, laparoscopy remains preferable to robotics to treat pediatric varicocele. Probably soon, along with the miniaturization of robotic instruments and the decrease of associated costs, RAV may become the technique of choice to treat pediatric varicocele.
Ethical approval
Ethical approval was waived by the local Ethics Committee of Federico II University of Naples, Italy in view of the retrospective nature of the study and all the procedures being performed were part of the routine care.
Financial interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Informed consent
Written informed consent was obtained from the parents or legal guardians.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, ME, upon reasonable request.
References
Clarke BG (1966) Incidence of varicocele in normal men and among men of different ages. JAMA 198(10):1121–1122
Kupis Ł, Dobroński PA, Radziszewski P (2015) Varicocele as a source of male infertility-current treatment techniques. Cent European J Urol 68:365–370. https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2015.642
Elahi M, Hojati V, Hashemitabar M, Afrough M, Kargar HM, Dastoorpoor M (2023) Negative effect of varicocele on sperm mitochondrial dysfunction: A cross-sectional study. Int J Reprod Biomed 21(4):323–332. https://doi.org/10.18502/ijrm.v21i4.13271
Kang C, Punjani N, Lee RK, Li PS, Goldstein M (2022) Effect of varicoceles on spermatogenesis. Semin Cell Dev Biol 121:114–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2021.04.005
Nakonechnyi Y, Nakonechnyi A, Fraczek M, Havrylyuk A, Kamieniczna M, Chopyak V, Kurpisz M (2022) Varicocelectomy improves sperm parameters, sperm DNA integrity as well as the other critical semen features. J Physiol Pharmacol 73(6). https://doi.org/10.26402/jpp.2022.6.09
Lay R, Logvinenko T, Kurtz MP, Masoom S, Venna A, Diamond DA (2023) Successful adolescent varicocelectomy improves total motile sperm count. J Pediatr Surg 58(12):2449–2452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2023.08.007
Parrilli A, Roberti A, Escolino M, Esposito C (2016) Surgical approaches for varicocele in pediatric patient. Transl Pediatr 5(4):227–232. https://doi.org/10.21037/tp.2016.09.11
Akkoç A, Aydın C, Topaktaş R, Altın S, Uçar M, Topçuoğlu M, Buğra Şentürk A (2019) Retroperitoneal high ligation versus subinguinal varicocelectomy: Effectiveness of two different varicocelectomy techniques on the treatment of painful varicocele. Andrologia 51(7):e13293. https://doi.org/10.1111/and.13293
Ding H, Tian J, Du W, Zhang L, Wang H, Wang Z (2012) Open non-microsurgical, laparoscopic or open microsurgical varicocelectomy for male infertility: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BJU Int 110(10):1536–1542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2012.11093.x
Silveri M, Bassani F, Adorisio O (2015) Changing concepts in microsurgical pediatric varicocelectomy: is retroperitoneal approach better than subinguinal one? Urol J 12(1):2032–2035
Barroso U Jr, Andrade DM, Novaes H, Netto JM, Andrade J (2009) Surgical treatment of varicocele in children with open and laparoscopic Palomo technique: a systematic review of the literature. J Urol 181(6):2724–2728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.02.041
Nees SN, Glassberg KI (2011) Observations on hydroceles following adolescent varicocelectomy. J Urol 186(6):2402–2407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.07.116
Hassan JM, Adams MC, Pope JC 4th, Demarco RT, Brock JW 3rd (2006) Hydrocele formation following laparoscopic varicocelectomy. J Urol 175(3 Pt 1):1076–1079. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)00402-7
Esposito C, Turrà F, Del Conte F, Izzo S, Gargiulo F, Farina A, Severino G, Cerulo M, Escolino M (2019) Indocyanine green fluorescence lymphography: a new technique to perform lymphatic sparing laparoscopic palomo varicocelectomy in children. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 29(4):564–567. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2018.0624
Rizkala E, Fishman A, Gitlin J, Zelkovic P, Franco I (2013) Long term outcomes of lymphatic sparing laparoscopic varicocelectomy. J Pediatr Urol 9(4):458–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2012.12.009
Esposito C, Iaquinto M, Escolino M, Cortese G, De Pascale T, Chiarenza F, Cerulo M, Settimi A (2014) Technical standardization of laparoscopic lymphatic sparing varicocelectomy in children using isosulfan blue. J Pediatr Surg 49(4):660–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2013.12.022
Capolicchio JP, El-Sherbiny M, Brzezinski A, Eassa W, Jednak R (2013) Dye-assisted lymphatic-sparing laparoscopic varicocelectomy in children. J Pediatr Urol 9(1):33–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2011.11.004
Zundel S, Szavay P, Stanasel I (2021) Management of adolescent varicocele. Semin Pediatr Surg 30(4):151084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sempedsurg.2021.151084
Tandon S, Bennett D, Mark Nataraja R, Pacilli M (2023) Outcome following the surgical management of varicocele in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ther Adv Urol 15:17562872231206240. https://doi.org/10.1177/17562872231206239
Esposito C, Autorino G, Castagnetti M, Cerulo M, Coppola V, Cardone R, Esposito G, Borgogni R, Escolino M (2021) Robotics and future technical developments in pediatric urology. Semin Pediatr Surg 30(4):151082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sempedsurg.2021.151082
Reinhardt S, Thorup J, Joergensen PH, Fode M (2023) Robot-assisted laparoscopic varicocelectomy in a pediatric population. Pediatr Surg Int 39(1):202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-023-05488-w
Esposito C, Coppola V, Del Conte F, Cerulo M, Esposito G, Farina A, Crocetto F, Castagnetti M, Settimi A, Escolino M (2020) Near-Infrared fluorescence imaging using indocyanine green (ICG): emerging applications in pediatric urology. J Pediatr Urol 16(5):700–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2020.07.008
Hidalgo-Tamola J, Sorensen MD, Bice JB, Lendvay TS (2009) Pediatric robot-assisted laparoscopic varicocelectomy. J Endourol 23(8):1297–1300. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.0523
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, de Santibañes E, Pekolj J, Slankamenac K, Bassi C, Graf R, Vonlanthen R, Padbury R, Cameron JL, Makuuchi M (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e3181b13ca2
Kass E, Marcol B (1992) Results of varicocele surgery in adolescents: a comparison of techniques. J Urol 148:694–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)36696-x
Fast AM, Deibert CM, Van Batavia JP, Nees SN, Glassberg KI (2014) Adolescent varicocelectomy: does artery sparing influence recurrence rate and/or catch-up growth? Andrology 2(2):159–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2047-2927.2013.00142.x
Grober ED, Obrien J, Jarvi KA, Zini A (2004) Preservation of testicular arteries during subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy: clinical considerations. J Androl 25(5):740–743. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1939-4640.2004.tb02849.x
Kim KS, Lee C, Song SH, Cho SJ, Park S, Moon KH, Ryu DS, Park S (2014) Impact of internal spermatic artery preservation during laparoscopic varicocelectomy on recurrence and the catch-up growth rate in adolescents. J Pediatr Urol 10(3):435–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2013.11.003
Al-Kandari AM, Khudair A, Arafa A, Zanaty F, Ezz A, El-Shazly M (2018) Microscopic subinguinal varicocelectomy in 100 consecutive cases: Spermatic cord vascular anatomy, recurrence and hydrocele outcome analysis. Arab J Urol 16(1):181–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2017.12.002
Chiarenza SF, D’Agostino S, Scarpa MG, Fabbro M, Costa L, Musi L (2006) Lymphography prior to laparoscopic Palomo varicocelectomy to prevent postoperative hydrocele. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 16(4):394–396. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2006.16.394
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
C Esposito: Project development, Data analysis, Manuscript writing, Manuscript final supervision. E Leva: Project development, Data analysis, Manuscript final supervision. M Castagnetti: Project development, Data analysis, Manuscript final supervision. M Cerulo: Data collection, Data analysis, Manuscript editing. M Cardarelli: Data collection, Data analysis, Manuscript editing. F Del Conte: Data collection, Data analysis, Manuscript editing. G Esposito: Data collection, Data management, Manuscript editing. A Chiodi: Data collection, Data analysis, Manuscript editing. M Chiarenza: Data collection, Data management, Manuscript editing. C Di Mento: Data collection, Data analysis, Manuscript editing. M Escolino: Project development, Data analysis, Manuscript writing, Manuscript final supervision.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Supplementary file1 (MP4 214856 KB)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Esposito, C., Leva, E., Castagnetti, M. et al. Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic ICG-fluorescence lymphatic-sparing palomo varicocelectomy: a comparative retrospective study of techniques and outcomes. World J Urol 42, 215 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-04909-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-04909-2