Indigo Carmine Dye–Assisted Lymphatic-Sparing Microsurgical Subinguinal Varicocelectomy Among Children and Adolescents
Tóm tắt
The purpose of this study is to clarify the safety and efficacy of indigo carmine dye–assisted lymphatic-sparing microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy for children and adolescents in our institution. Medical records of boys aged ≤ 15 years who underwent varicocelectomy between November 2008 and December 2019 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy was performed using indigo carmine injection under the tunica vaginalis to preserve lymphatics. A total of 29 patients underwent varicocelectomy, among whom six underwent retroperitoneal high ligation (modified Palomo technique), nine underwent laparoscopic varicocelectomy, and 14 underwent microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy. The median operative time for retroperitoneal high ligation, laparoscopic varicocelectomy, and microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy was 71 (IQR: 59–82.5) min, 131 (95–151) min, and 125.5 (112–134.25) min, respectively. Among the patients who underwent laparoscopic varicocelectomy, one and two experienced hydrocele and varicocele recurrence as postoperative complications, respectively. None of the patients who underwent microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy developed hydrocele and varicocele recurrence during 15.5-month median follow-up period (IQR: 11.25–25.75 month). Indigo carmine dye–assisted lymphatic-sparing microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy can be a safe and efficient treatment modality among children and adolescents.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Serefoglu EC, Saitz TR, La Nasa JA, Hellstrom WJ (2013) Adolescent varicocoele management controversies. Andrology 1(1):109–115
Niedzielski J, Paduch D, Raczynski P (1997) Assessment of adolescent varicocele. Pediatr Surg Int 12(5–6):410–413
Silay MS et al (2019) Treatment of varicocele in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology/European Society for Paediatric Urology Guidelines Panel(figure presented.). Eur Urol 75(3):448–461
Akkoç A et al (2019) Retroperitoneal high ligation versus subinguinal varicocelectomy: effectiveness of two different varicocelectomy techniques on the treatment of painful varicocele. Andrologia 51(7):1–5
Ishibashi H, Mori H, Yada K, Shimada M, Sogami T, Nii A (2014) Indigo carmine dye-assisted lymphatic-sparing laparoscopic Palomo varicocelectomy in children. J Med Investig 61(1–2):151–155
Çayan S, Bozlu M, Akbay E (2017) Update on the novel management and future paternity situation in adolescents with varicocele. Turkish J Urol 43(3):241–246
Schwentner C, Oswald J, Lunacek A, Deibl M, Bartsch G, Radmayr C (2006) Optimizing the outcome of microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy using isosulfan blue: a prospective randomized trial. J Urol 175(3):1049–1052
D’Alessio A, Piro E, Beretta F, Brugnoni M, Marinoni F, Abati L (2008) Lymphatic preservation using methylene blue dye during varicocele surgery: a single-center retrospective study. J Pediatr Urol 4(2):138–140
Dubin L, Amelar RD (1970) Varicocele size and results of varicocelectomy in selected subfertile men with varicocele. Fertil Steril 21(8):606–609
Jacobson DL, Johnson EK (2017) Varicoceles in the pediatric and adolescent population: threat to future fertility? Fertil Steril 108(3):370–377
Pintus C, Rodriguez Matas MJ, Manzoni C, Nanni L, Perrelli L (2001) “Varicocele in pediatric patients comparative assessment of different therapeutic approaches.” Urology 57(1):154–157
Diamond DA, Gargollo PC, Caldamone AA, D M (2011) “Current management principles for adolescent varicocele.” Fertil Steril 96(6):1294–1298
Skoog SJ, Roberts KP, Goldstein M, Pryor JL (1997) The adolescent varicocele: what’s new with an old problem in young patients? Pediatrics 100(1):112–122
Richter F, Stock JA, LaSalle M, Sadeghi-Nejad H, Hanna MK (2001) Management of prepubertal varicoceles-results of a questionnaire study among pediatric urologists and urologists with infertility training. Urology 58(1):98–102
Al-Kandari AM, Shabaan H, Ibrahim HM, Elshebiny YH, Shokeir AA (2007) Comparison of outcomes of different varicocelectomy techniques: open inguinal, laparoscopic, and subinguinal microscopic varicocelectomy: a randomized clinical trial. Urology 69(3):417–420
S.-O. Kim, H. Jung, and K. Park, “Outcomes of microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy for painful varicoceles.”
Shiraishi K, Oka S, Matsuyama H (2016) Surgical comparison of subinguinal and high inguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy for adolescent varicocele. Int J Urol 23(4):338–342
Schwentner C, Oswald J, Lunacek A, Deibl M, Bartsch G, Radmayr C (2006) Optimizing the outcome of microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy using isosulfan blue: a prospective randomized trial. J Urol 175(3 Pt 1):1049–1052
Mehta A, Goldstein M (2013) Microsurgical varicocelectomy: a review. Asian J Androl 15(1):56–60
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