Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Jaboulay’s technique contrasted with a novel hydrocelectomy technique using a vessel sealer in the treatment of adult hydrocele: a prospective randomized study

  • Urology - Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The study aims to compare the clinical efficacy, complications, and patient satisfaction rates of two open hydrocelectomy techniques, Jaboulay’s technique, and sac excision hydrocelectomy using a LigaSure™ device, in a prospective and randomized fashion.

Methods

Eighty-two (82) patients were randomized, one-to-one into two groups. All surgeries were carried out by a single surgeon. Jaboulay’s technique and hydrocelectomy with excision of the sac were carried out in the first and the second groups, respectively. The patients’ data were collected prospectively on the first day, the first week, the first month, and the sixth month after surgery. Patient demographics, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and sixth-month cosmetic satisfaction rates were compared between the groups.

Results

We observed better patient satisfaction [73.2% confer (cf.) 92.9%], shorter hospital stay (1.66 cf. 1.29 days), and less incidence of postoperative edemas (31.7% cf. 6%) in the sac excision hydrocelectomy group (p = 0.017, p = 0.011, and p = 0.029, respectively).

Conclusion

We can report that hydrocelectomy with an excision of the sac using a vessel-sealing device, namely LigaSure™, provides less incidences of postoperative edemas and better patient satisfaction rates respective to the Jaboulay’s technique in the treatment of adult hydrocele. The statistical difference between hospital stay times is mostly affected by social factors in our study. Clinically, all patients were amenable to discharge in the first day.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sampietro Crespo A, Vaquerizo Gareta A, Fernández Durán A, Fernández Gómez J, Zazo Romojaro A, Alvarez Fernández F, Gómez Rodríguez A (1995) Major outpatient surgery in urology: our experience. Arch Esp Urol. 48(4):343–346 (article in Spanish)

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Swartz MA, Morgan TM, Krieger JN (2007) Complications of scrotal surgery for benign conditions. Urology 69(4):616–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Khaniya S, Agrawal CS, Koirala R, Regmi R, Adhikary S (2009) Comparison of aspiration-sclerotherapy with hydrocelectomy in the management of hydrocele: a prospective randomized study. Int J Surg 7(4):392–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rioja J, Sánchez-Margallo FM, Usón J, Rioja LA (2011) Adult hydrocele and spermatocele. BJU Int 107(11):1852–1864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Francis JJ, Levine LA (2013) Aspiration and sclerotherapy: a nonsurgical treatment option for hydroceles. J Urol 189(5):1725–1729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ho GT, Ball RA, Schuessler W, Kavoussi LR (1993) Efficacy of endoscopic hydrocele ablation. J Endourol 7(1):71–74

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bin Y, Yong-Bao W, Zhuo Y, Jin-Rui Y (2014) Minimal hydrocelectomy with the aid of scrotoscope: a ten-year experience. Int Braz J Urol 40(3):384–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Emir L, Sunay M, Dadalı M, Karakaya Y, Erol D (2011) Endoscopic versus open hydrocelectomy for the treatment of adult hydroceles: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int Urol Nephrol 43(1):55–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Al-Ali BM, Popper H, Pummer K (2012) A case of Fournier’s gangrene after hydrocelectomy. Cent Eur J Urol 65(2):92–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ross LS, Flom LS (1991) Azoospermia: a complication of hydrocele repair in a fertile population. J Urol 146(3):852–853

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tsai L, Milburn PA, Cecil CL 4th, Lowry PS, Hermans MR (2019) Comparison of recurrence and postoperative complications between 3 different techniques for surgical repair of idiopathic hydrocele. Urology 125:239–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zahalsky MP, Berman AJ, Nagler HM (2004) Evaluating the risk of epididymal injury during hydrocelectomy and spermatocelectomy. J Urol 171(6 Pt 1):2291–2292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rowe NE, Martin P, Luke PP (2016) The Western snip, stitch, and tug hydrocelectomy: how I do it. Can Urol Assoc J 10(9–10):E328–E330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Onol SY, Ilbey YO, Onol FF, Ozbek E, Arslan B, Akbaş A (2009) A novel pull-through technique for the surgical management of idiopathic hydrocele. J Urol 181(3):1201–1205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Saber A (2015) Minimally access versus conventional hydrocelectomy: a randomized trial. Int Braz J Urol. 41(4):750–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cocci A, Patruno G, Gandaglia G, Rizzo M, Esperto F, Parnanzini D, Pietropaolo A, Principi E, Talso M, Baldesi R, Battaglia A, Shehu E, Carrobbio F, Corsaro A, La Rocca R, Marchioni M, Bianchi L, Miglioranza E, Mantica G, Martorana E, Misuraca L, Fontana D, Forte S, Napoli G, Russo GI, Senato degli Specializzandi Study Group (2018) Urology residency training in Italy: results of the first national survey. Eur Urol Focus. 4(2):280–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Abe K, Kato N, Miki K, Nimura S, Suzuki M, Kiyota H, Onodera S, Oishi Y (2002) Malignant mesothelioma of testicular tunica vaginalis. Int J Urol 9(10):602–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mackenzie CD, Lazarus WM, Mwakitalu ME, Mwingira U, Malecela MN (2009) Lymphatic filariasis: patients and the global elimination programme. Ann Trop Med Parasitol 103(Suppl 1):S41–S51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Thomas G, Richards FO Jr, Eigege A, Dakum NK, Azzuwut MP, Sarki J, Gontor I, Abimiku J, Ogah G, Jindau MY, Jiya JY, Miri ES (2009) A pilot program of mass surgery weeks for treatment of hydrocele due to lymphatic filariasis in central Nigeria. Am J Trop Med Hyg 80(3):447–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Turner HC, Bettis AA, Chu BK, McFarland DA, Hooper PJ, Mante SD, Fitzpatrick C, Bradley MH (2017) Investment success in public health: an analysis of the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of the global programme to eliminate lymphatic filariasis. Clin Infect Dis 64(6):728–735

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim CJ, Kushima M, Okada Y, Tomoyoshi T (1991) Tunica albuginea cyst associated with hydrocele testis: report of a case. Hinyokika Kiyo 37(9):1065–1068 (article in Japanese)

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Marte A, Prezioso M, Sabatino MD, Borrelli M, Romano M, Del Balzo B, Nino F, Parmeggiani P (2009) Syringocele in children: an unusual presentation as scrotal mass. Minerva Pediatr 61(1):123–127 (article in Italian)

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Mitsuzuka K, Eriguchi T, Shimada S, Kato SN (2007) Bilateral spermatocele concurrent with bilateral scrotal hydrocele presenting huge scrotal swelling. Hinyokika Kiyo 53(10):729–731

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Viers CD, Lele SM, Kirkpatrick T, LaGrange CA (2017) Carcinosarcoma of the tunica vaginalis following radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Urol Case Rep 20(13):140–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kim YW, Kim JW, Kim JH, Lee J, Lee E, Kim MY, Yang HK, Chang H (2014) Metastatic testicular tumor presenting as a scrotal hydrocele: an initial manifestation of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Oncol Lett 7(6):1793–1795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Shah VS, Nepple KG, Lee DK (2014) Routine pathology evaluation of hydrocele and spermatocele specimens is associated with significant costs and no identifiable benefit. J Urol 192(4):1179–1182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zampieri N, El-Dalati G, Ottolenghi A, Camoglio FS (2009) Percutaneous aspiration for hydroceles after varicocelectomy. Urology 74(5):1122–1124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rodríguez WC, Rodríguez DD, Fortuño RF (1981) The operative treatment of hydrocele: a comparison of 4 basic techniques. J Urol 125(6):804–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey

    Fatih Ozkaya

  2. Department of Urology, Medical Park Ankara Private Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

    Ozer Ural Cakici

Authors
  1. Fatih Ozkaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ozer Ural Cakici
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

FO: performance of surgeries, collection of data, and patient follow-up. OUC: interpretation of data, main design of the study, and writing of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ozer Ural Cakici.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors certify that there is no conflict of interest with any organization regarding the material discussed in this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ozkaya, F., Cakici, O.U. Jaboulay’s technique contrasted with a novel hydrocelectomy technique using a vessel sealer in the treatment of adult hydrocele: a prospective randomized study. Int Urol Nephrol 52, 447–453 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-019-02342-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-019-02342-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation