Comparing three different surgical techniques used in adult bilateral varicocele

Asian J Endosc Surg ISSN 1758-5902 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Comparing three different surgical techniques used in adult bilateral varicocele HB Sun, Y Liu, MB Yan, ZD Li & XG Gui Department of Urology, Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Zhuhai, China Keywords laparoscopic varicocelectomy; open inguinal approach; retroperitoneal approach Correspondence Min-bo Yan, Department of Urology, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai 519000, China. Tel: +86 13750019650 Fax: +86 07562528210 Email: yanminbo86@163.com Received: 18 May 2011; revised 10 Aug 2011; accepted 1 September 2011 DOI:10.1111/j.1758-5910.2011.00109.x Abstract Introduction: Varicocele is a common disease in adult men that can be treated with one of several surgical methods. Each technique has advantages and disadvantages, and conflicting results have been obtained by different studies. To evaluate the most effective surgical techniques used in adult bilateral varicocele, including minimally invasive procedures, we compared the outcomes of three common surgical approaches in this prospective randomized study. Methods: The study included 153 patients with bilateral varicoceles who underwent varicocelectomy. These patients were randomly divided into three equal groups according to surgical approach used open inguinal, retroperitoneal or laparoscopic. The assessment included operative time, length of hospital stay, clinical outcome and, in cases of infertility, semen analysis. The mean follow-up was 12 months (range, 8 to 15 months). Results: The operative time and hospital stay in the laparoscopic group were significantly shorter than in the other groups (P < 0.01). Of the 51 cases in each group, there were seven cases (13.73%) of recurrence in the open inguinal group, six cases (11.76%) in the retroperitoneal group, and one case (1.96%) in the laparoscopic group. This lower rate of recurrence was statistically significant in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.05). Among the three groups, comparisons between preoperative and postoperative semen parameters showed visible improvements in sperm concentration and motility (P < 0.01), but there were no significant differences between the three groups for postoperative changes in semen parameters (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Compared with open inguinal and retroperitoneal varicocelectomy, laparoscopic varicolerectomy offers the best outcome. Introduction Varicocele is the most common cause of male infertility. The incidence of varicocele in the general population is approximately 15%, though in men presenting for infertility testing demonstrate varicocele at rates from 19% to 41% (1). The mechanism by which varicocele exerts a deleterious effect on testicular function and semen quality remains unknown. It is the most frequent correctable male infertility disease, and numerous studies have indicated the significant effect that varicocele treatments have on semen parameters, justifying the procedure for male infertility. However, treatment of varicocele is still controversial. Several methods have been used, including open surgical ligation of the spermatic vein as well as laparoscopic and microsurgical varicocelectomy. Each technique has advantages and disadvantages, and conflicting results have been obtained by different studies (2 5). In this prospective randomized study, we compare the outcomes of three of these common surgical approaches, the open inguinal approach, the retroperitoneal approach and the laparoscopic approach of bilateral varicocelectomy. 12

HB Sun et al. Comparing varicocelectomy techniques Materials and Methods Patients Between June 2003 and December 2009, 435 consecutive patients with varicocele were treated by the Department of Urology at the Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University. Of those patients, the 153 had bilateral varicoceles, and they are the subjects of the present study; patients with either right-sided or left-sided varicocele were excluded. All patients were randomly allocated into one of three groups of equal size: group 1 consisted of 51 patients who underwent open inguinal varicocelectomy; group 2, retroperitoneal approach; and group 3, laparoscopic approach. Diagnostic protocol included a physical examination with the Valsalva maneuver and color Doppler ultrasonography, which documented retrograde blood flow in the spermatic cord and confirmed the diagnosis. Indications for varicocelectomy were the same in all groups and included scrotal pain (63.5%), infertility (25.6%), and documented abnormalities in sperm parameters (10.9%). The patients were informed of the advantages and disadvantages of each technique. All patients included in the present study agreed to the procedure selected at random and provided written informed consent. The Sun Yat-Sen University Medical Ethical Committee (Zhuhai Ethics Committee) approved the study. Bilateral varicocelectomy techniques Open inguinal approach Open inguinal varicocelectomy was performed using a standard technique; patients received lumbar anesthesia. All venous vessels within the spermatic cord were ligated at the level of the external inguinal ring, without delivery of the testis and with the spermatic artery spared. The spermatic artery was identified by visible pulsation. Retroperitoneal approach The internal spermatic veins were ligated according to the Palomo procedure (6). A 5-cm transverse incision and an oblique muscle-splitting incision were made at the level of the anterior superior iliac spine to reach the retroperitoneal cavity. The testicular arteries were separated and preserved to the extent possible. Laparoscopic approach Patients undergoing laparoscopic approach were administered general anesthesia. Varicocele ligation was performed with the intent of preserving the testicular artery. The identification of the testicular arteries on a video monitor made it possible to interrupt only the internal spermatic vein and to preserve the testicular arteries. The procedure required 1-cm skin incisions at Munro s point, the point just below the umbilicus, and the point at three finger-widths above the symphysis pubis. The details of this procedure have been previously described (7). Follow up All patients underwent postoperative evaluations at 1 week to check the wound and then at 1 and 3 months postoperatively. Thereafter, patients had a follow-up every 3 months. The evaluations included physical examination, color Doppler ultrasonography of the scrotum and, in the infertility cases, semen analysis. The recurrence of a clinical varicocele was determined based on the findings from the physical examination and color Doppler ultrasonography. The mean length of the follow-up period was 12 months (range 8 to 15 months). Statistical analysis The collected data were analyzed using SPSS v. 13.0 (Chicago, USA). Comparisons of the preoperative and postoperative parameters among the three study groups were done using the c 2 test, t-test, paired t-test and, where appropriate, the one-way ANOVA. A P-value less than 0.05 was considered significant. Results Patients The mean age of the patients in group 1 was 24.98 3.02 years (range, 19 to 33 years), 25.08 3.03 years (range, 19 to 32 years) in group 2, and 24.24 4.63 years (range, 18 to 35 years) in group 3 (one-way ANOVA, P = 0.44). There were 37 infertile patients in group 1, 40 in group 2, and 35 in group 3 (c 2 tests, P = 0.53). Operative time and hospital days The operation time was calculated from incision to skin closure in the open inguinal and retroperitoneal approaches, and from trocar insertion to trocar extraction and skin closure for laparoscopic varicocelectomy. Anesthesia induction was not considered the starting point. In our study, the mean operative time and hospital stay in the laparoscopic group was significantly shorter than in other two groups (Table 1). Clinical outcomes At follow-up, none of the patients had a postoperative testicular hydrocele nor did any develop testicular 13

Comparing varicocelectomy techniques HB Sun et al. Table 1 Operative time and hospital stay of varicocele patients Inguinal Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic P-value 1 P-value 2 Operative time (min) 66.51 7.75 59.86 8.45 41.12 6.46 < 0.01 < 0.01 Hospital stay (days) 3.96 1.27 4.16 1.32 2.04 1.25 < 0.01 < 0.01 Statistical analysis using t-tests. P-value 1 : laparoscopic group versus open inguinal group. P-value 2 : laparoscopic group versus retroperitoneal group. Table 2 Recurrence of varicocele Inguinal (n) Retroperitoneal (n) Laparoscopic (n) P-value 1 P-value 2 Recurrence 7 6 1 0.027 0.050 No recurrence 44 45 50 Statistical analysis using c 2 tests. P-value 1 : laparoscopic group versus open inguinal group. P-value 2 : laparoscopic group versus retroperitoneal group. atrophy. Only one (1.96%) patient in the laparoscopic group experienced a recurrence of varicocele whereas seven (13.73%) and six (11.76%) patients in the open inguinal and retroperitoneal groups, respectively, had a reccurence. This difference was statistically significant in favor of the laparoscopic group (Table 2). Semen analysis (infertility cases) Comparisons of the mean preoperative and postoperative semen parameters among the three groups showed significant improvement in sperm concentration and motility, but with no significant changes in sperm morphology (Table 3). Improvement in sperm motility and/or concentration was observed in 52% of the open inguinal group, 37% of the retroperitoneal group, and 40% of the laparoscopic group. The one-way ANOVA test indicated no significant differences in changes in semen parameters between the three approaches (Table 4). Cost of different technologies In terms of operative time and instruments, the mean cost of the procedure was 4029 yuan for the laparoscopic group, 2546 yuan for the open inguinal group, and 2712 yuan for the retroperitoneal group. The cost for the laparoscopic group was higher than that for the other two groups. Discussion There are several operative techniques used to treat varicocele. The first surgical method for varicocele was explained by Celsus in the 1st century (ipsilateral orchidectomy, which consisted of an atrophic testis) Table 3 Semen parameters of the infertility cases under the different approaches Varicocelectomy Before treatment After treatment (12 months) P-value Open inguinal approach Sperm count ( 106/mL) 24.85 6.80 38.47 6.17 <0.01 Sperm motility (%) 32.45 7.11 48.70 8.45 <0.01 Sperm morphology (%) 34.56 3.99 35.97 4.17 0.142 Retroperitoneal approach Sperm count ( 106/mL) 30.15 3.81 41.30 6.28 <0.01 Sperm motility (%) 34.20 8.78 46.94 6.24 <0.01 Sperm morphology (%) 31.72 3.68 32.57 3.25 0.288 Laparoscopic approach Sperm count ( 106/mL) 30.86 5.06 43.56 5.99 <0.01 Sperm motility (%) 34.88 4.43 48.35 5.05 <0.01 Sperm morphology (%) 34.34 4.86 35.85 5.37 0.193 Statistical analysis using paired t-tests. P-value: after treatment versus before treatment. (8). Currently, popular varicocelectomy methods include the Ivanissevich method (retroperitoneal), Palomo method, subinguinal method, laparoscopic method, and sclerotherapy (internal spermatic vein embolization). Although there have been investigations and reports on various varicocele treatments with regard to outcomes such as complications, recurrence and pregnancy rates, the most effective and least invasive method is remains unknown. In this report, we have shown that laparoscopic varicocelectomy is the most time-saving procedure. Its mean operative time was approximately 41 min; the other procedures required nearly 1 hour (Table 1). Additionally, compared with open inguinal and retroperitoneal 14

HB Sun et al. Comparing varicocelectomy techniques Table 4 Changes in semen parameters between the three different approaches Inguinal Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic F P-value Sperm count ( 106/mL) 13.63 8.81 11.20 6.82 12.70 7.98 0.93 0.40 Sperm motility (%) 16.25 11.39 12.74 10.61 13.47 6.55 1.34 0.27 Sperm morphology (%) 1.41 5.71 0.85 4.96 1.51 6.73 0.15 0.86 Statistical analysis using the one-way ANOVA test. P-value: the difference between the three groups. patients, patients who underwent the laparoscopic procedure spent, on average, 2 fewer days in the hospital. Testicular hydrocele and varicocele recurrence are the most commonly reported and most significant complications of varicocelectomy. Incidence of testicular hydrocele ranges from 0.3% to 40.4%, as reported by Kocvara et al. (9). According to Al-Said et al., hydrocele formation did not occur in the microscopic group, but it occurred at rates of 2.8% and 5.4%, respectively, in the open and laparoscopic groups (10). Al-Kandari et al. reported that the etiology of post-varicocelectomy hydrocele is ligation of the lymphatic vessels, which are colorless and sometimes are mistaken for veins (11). Though many foreign experts used lymphatic-sparing laparoscopic or microscopic varicocelectomy to prevent the formation of hydroceles (12), we did not observe any post-varicocelectomy hydrocele during follow-up. The most likely reason for this is that the onset age for Chinese varicocele patients differs greatly from that in foreign countries. In China, adult varicocele are very common and adolescent varicocele are rare. Other reports have had recurrence rates after laparoscopic varicocelectomy as high as 4.3% (13), but it was 1.96% (one case) in our laparoscopic group. Among the three groups, laparoscopic varicoceletomy had the lowest postoperative rate of varicocele recurrence (Table 2). Varicocele was traditionally described as being disadvantageous to spermatogenesis, causing a low sperm count, poor motility and abnormal morphology (14). In the present study, there were visible changes in the semen parameters after each varicocelectomy. We saw significant improvement in sperm concentration and motility (Table 3), but there were no significant differences between the three groups in postoperative semen parameters changes (Table 4). In conclusion, the laparoscopic technique has several advantages over the open inguinal and retroperitoneal approaches. It is simple, shortens the operative time and hospital stay, improves the semen parameters, and results in reduced postoperative pain, which requires less injectable narcotic analgesia. It also has a low incidence of varicocele recurrence and minimal residual scarring (15). Furthermore, laparoscopic varicocelectomy is easily mastered, does not require microsurgical skills, and provides better magnification of the vascular structures, which is helpful in preserving the testicular artery (16). Acknowledgments We would like to thank Xu Bai-Sheng and Lu Jing for collecting data and conducting research for this study. Our research was approved by Zhuhai Ethics Committee, and we have no conflicts of interest. This manuscript has been approved by all authors for publication. References 1. Naughton CK, Nangia AK, Agarwal A. Pathophysiology of varicoceles in male infertility. Hum Reprod Update 2001; 7: 473 481. 2. May M, Johannsen M, Beutner S et al. Laparoscopic surgery versus antegrade scrotal sclerotherapy: Retrospective comparison of two different approaches of varicocele treatment. Eur Urol 2006; 49: 384 387. 3. Ghanem H, Annis T, Nashar A et al. Subinguinal microvaricocelectomy versus retroperitoneal varicocelectomy: Comparative study of complications and surgical outcome. Urology 2004; 64: 1005 1009. 4. Schiff J, Kelly C, Goldstein M et al. Managing varicoceles in children: Results with microsurgical varicocelectomy. BJU Int 2005; 95: 750 754. 5. Zini A, Fischer A, Bellack D et al. Technial modifications of microsurgical varicocelectomy can reduce operating time. Urology 2006; 67: 803 806. 6. Palomo A. Radical cure of varicocele by a new technique: Preliminary report. J Urol 1949; 61: 604 607. 7. Oeda T, Ichikawa T, Shidahara K et al. Experience with laparoscopic varicocelectomy. Nishinihon J Urol 1992; 54: 1717 1720. 8. Spink MS & Lewis GL. Albucasis on surgery and instruments. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1973; 438. 9. Kocvara R, Dvoracek J, Sedlacek J et al. Lymphatic sparing laparoscopic varicocelectomy: A microsurgical repair. J Urol 2005; 173: 1751 1754. 10. Al-Said S, Al-Naimi A, Al-Ansari A et al. Varicocelectomy for male infertility: A comparative study of open, laparoscopic 15

Comparing varicocelectomy techniques HB Sun et al. and microsurgical approaches. J Urol 2008; 180: 266 270. 11. Al-Kandari AM, Shabaan H, Ibrahim HM et al. Comparison of outcomes of different varicocelectomy techniques: Open inguinal, laparoscopic, and subinguinal microscopic varicocelectomy: a randomized clinical trial. Urology 2007; 69: 417 420. 12. VanderBrink BA, Palmer LS, Gitlin J et al. Lymphaticsparing laparoscopic varicocelectomy versus microscopic varicocelectomy: Is there a difference? Urology 2007; 70: 1207 1210. 13. Çayan S, Shavakhabov S, Lu A et al. Treatment of palpable varicocele in infertile men: A meta-analysis to define the best technique. J Androl 2009; 30: 33 40. 14. Hsu GL, Ling PY, Hsieh CH et al. Outpatient varicocelectomy performed under local anesthesia. Asian J Androl 2005; 7: 439 444. 15. Barot P, Neff M, Cantor B et al. Laparoscopic varicocelectomy with lymphatic preservation using methylene blue dye. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2004; 14: 183 185. 16. Salvatore FC, Sergio DA, Mariagrazia S et al. Lymphography prior to laparoscopic Palomo varicocelectomy to prevent postoperative hydrocele. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 2006; 16: 394 396. 16