Surgical Repair of Varicocele: a Comparative Study of the Retroperitoneal Approach of Palomo, the Modified Palomo Technique and the Microsurgical Inguinal Approach of Ivanisseivich's Technique.
10.4111/kju.2006.47.10.1086
- Author:
Ju Hyun SHIN
1
;
Jea Sung LIM
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, Chungnam National University College of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea. uro17@cnuh.co.kr
- Publication Type:Comparative Study ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Varicocele;
Palomo technique;
Modified Palomo technique;
Microsurgical varicocelectomy
- MeSH:
Arteries;
Follow-Up Studies;
Humans;
Incidence;
Operative Time;
Postoperative Complications;
Recurrence;
Retrospective Studies;
Sperm Count;
Varicocele*
- From:Korean Journal of Urology
2006;47(10):1086-1092
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: We wanted to compare our experience and results with three different methods of treatment for varicocele. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 1995 and December 2005, 154 patients with varicocele were retrospectively assigned into three groups according to the method of treatment. Group 1 included 73 patients who were treated by the retroperitoneal approach of Palomo's technique. Group 2 consisted of 37 patients who were treated by the retroperitoneal approach and who also underwent the internal spermatic artery preserving technique, and in group 3, 44 patients were treated by the microscopic inguinal approach of Ivanissevich's technique. We analyzed the operation time, recurrence, complications, the effect of surgical treatment and the results according to the surgical techniques. RESULTS: The mean operative time of group 3 was significantly longer among the three groups. The recurrence rate at follow-up was not significantly different among the three groups. The recurrence rate increased progressively with the increase of varicocles size from grade I to grade III for all the groups. The overall incidence of postoperative complications was significantly lower among the patients in group III. The postoperative spermiogram showed an increase in motility and sperm count for all the groups. There were no differences in the three techniques for resolution of pain, the duration of recovery and the spermiogram results. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the rate of relapse after the surgery between the three different treatment techniques, and the factors involved in relapse were more related to the size and severity of the varicocele. Microsurgical varicocelectomy had a disadvantage of a prolonged operation time. However, there was a low rate of postoperative complications for all three techniques.
