Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Treatment of varicocele with reference to age: a retrospective comparison of three minimally invasive procedures

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

This study investigated whether the therapeutic efficacy and morbidity of three minimally invasive techniques for varicocele correction—laparoscopic varicocelectomy (LV), antegrade sclerotherapy (AS), and retrograde embolization (RE)—differed between children and adults.

Methods

During a 10-year period, 356 procedures for varicocele correction, including 122 cases of LV, 108 cases of AS, and 126 cases of RE, were performed for 314 patients at our institution. Of these patients, 223 were 19 years of age or younger (group 1), and 133 were older than 19 years (group 2). Diagnosis and postoperative results were established clinically and with the use of Doppler ultrasonography. The failure rates and complications for each procedure were retrospectively evaluated and compared between the two age groups.

Results

The median follow-up period was 69 months (range, 6–122 months). For 25 patients (19.8%), RE was not feasible for technical reasons. In both groups, LV had a lower failure rate than AS or RE, but the difference between LV and AS was not significant in group 1 (7.7(% vs 11.9%; p > 0.5). Also in group 1, AS was associated with fewer complications than LV 1 (4.5% vs 15.4%; p < 0.05). In group 2, LV was significantly more effective in correcting varicoceles than the other two techniques (p < 0.01). In this group, the complication rates for all three procedures did not differ significantly (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

In our experience, LV was more effective than AS or RE in correcting varicoceles. For children and adolescents, AS may be more indicated because of the slightly lower complication rate and similar recurrence rates, as compared with LV, for this age group. The higher incidence of postoperative hydrocele formation after LV warrants more refined techniques such as the lymphatic-sparing approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alqahtani A, Yazbeck S, Dubois J, Garel L (2002) Percutaneous embolization of varicocele in children: a Canadian experience. J Pediatr Surg 37: 783–785

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Barot P, Neff M, Cantor B, Baig A, Geis PW, Fleisher M (2004) Laparoscopic varicocelectomy with lymphatic preservation using methylene blue dye. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 14: 183–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chalmers N, Hufton AP, Jackson RW, Conway B (2000) Radiation risk estimation in varicocele embolization. Br J Radiol 73: 293–297

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Chrouser K, Vandersteen D, Crocker J, Reinberg Y (2004) Nerve injury after laparoscopic varicocelectomy. J Urol 172: 691–693

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Delaney DP, Carr MC, Kolon TF, Snyder HM III, Zderic SA (2004) The physical characteristics of young males with varicocele. BJU Int 94: 624–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Feneley MR, Pal MK, Nockler IB, Hendry WF (1997) Retrograde embolization and causes of failure in the primary treatment of varicocele. Br J Urol 80: 642–646

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ficarra V, Porcaro AB, Righetti R, Cerruto MA, Pilloni S, Cavalleri S, Malossini G, Artibani W (2002) Antegrade scrotal sclerotherapy in the treatment of varicocele: a prospective study. BJU Int 89: 264–268

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Greenfield SP, Seville P, Wan J (2002) Experience with varicoceles in children and young adults. J Urol 168: 1684–1688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Iselin CE, Almagbaly U, Borst F, Rohner S, Schmidlin F, Campana A, Graber P (1997) Safety and efficiency of laparoscopic varicocelectomy in one hundred consecutive cases. Urol Int 58: 213–217

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Itoh K, Suzuki Y, Yazawa H, Ichiyanagi O, Miura M, Sasagawa I (2003) Results and complications of laparoscopic Palomo varicocelectomy. Arch Androl 49: 107–110

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kocvara R, Dvoracek J, Sedlacek J, Dite Z, Novak K (2005) Lymphatic-sparing laparoscopic varicocelectomy: a microsurgical repair. J Urol 173: 1751–1754

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Koyle MA, Oottamasathien S, Barqawi A, Rajimwale A, Furness PD (2004) Laparoscopic Palomo varicocele ligation in children and adolescents: results of 103 cases. J Urol 172: 1749–1752

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kuenkel MR, Korth K (1995) Rationale for antegrade sclerotherapy in varicoceles. Eur Urol 27: 13–17

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lemack GE, Uzzo RG, Schlegel PN, Goldstein M (1998) Microsurgical repair of the adolescent varicocele. J Urol 160: 179–181

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. May M, Taymoorian K, Beutner S, Helke C, Braun KP, Lein M, Roigas J, Hoschke B (2006) Body size and weight as predisposing factors in varicocele. Scand J Urol Nephrol 40: 45–48

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Nieschlag E, Behre HM (1998) Varicocele treatment in the age of “evidence-based medicine.” Urologe A 37: 265–269

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Oswald J, Korner I, Riccabona M (2001) The use of isosulphan blue to identify lymphatic vessels in high retroperitoneal ligation of adolescent varicocele-avoiding postoperative hydrocele. BJU Int 87: 502–504

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Palomo A (1949) Radical cure of varicocele by a new technique: preliminary report. J Urol 161: 604–609

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pintus C, Rodriguez Matas MJ, Manzoni C, Manzoni C, Nanni L, Perrelli L (2001) Varicocele in pediatric patients: comparative assessment of different therapeutic approaches. Urology 57: 154–157

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Podkamenev VV, Stalmakhovich VN, Urkov PS, Solovjev AA, Iljin VP (2002) Laparoscopic surgery for pediatric varicoceles: randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr Surg 37: 727–729

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Riccabona M, Oswald J, Koen M, Lusuardi L, Radmayr C, Bartsch G (2003) Optimizing the operative treatment of boys with varicocele: sequential comparison of 4 techniques. J Urol 169: 666–668

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sautter T, Sulser T, Suter S, Gretener H, Hauri D (2002) Treatment of varicocele: a prospective randomized comparison of laparoscopy versus antegrade sclerotherapy. Eur Urol 41: 398–400

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Silveri M, Adorisio O, Pane A, Colajacomo M, De Gennaro M (2003) Subinguinal microsurgical ligation: its effectiveness in pediatric and adolescent varicocele. Scand J Urol Nephrol 37: 53–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Tan HL, Tecson B, Ee MZ, Tantoco J (2004) Lymphatic sparing, laparoscopic varicocelectomy: a new surgical technique. Pediatr Surg Int 20: 797–798

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Tauber R, Johnsen N (1994) Antegrade scrotal sclerotherapy for the treatment of varicocele: technique and late results. J Urol 151: 386–390

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Carl-Thiem Hospital, Cottbus, Germany

    S. Beutner, M. May, B. Hoschke & C. Helke

  2. Department of Urology, Campus-Mitte, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany

    M. Lein, J. Roigas & M. Johannsen

Authors
  1. S. Beutner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. May
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. Hoschke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Helke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Lein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J. Roigas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. Johannsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Johannsen.

Additional information

S. Beutner and M. May contributed equally to this work

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Beutner, S., May, M., Hoschke, B. et al. Treatment of varicocele with reference to age: a retrospective comparison of three minimally invasive procedures. Surg Endosc 21, 61–65 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0684-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0684-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation