Laparoscopic varicocele ligation in children and adolescents using isosulphan blue: A prospective randomized trial

BJU International

Volumn 98, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 861-865

  Schwentner, Christian ^a   Radmayr, Christian ^a   Lunacek, Andreas ^a   Gozzi, Christian ^a   Pinggera, Germar M ^a   Neururer, Richard ^a   Peschel, Reinhard ^a   Bartsch, Georg ^a   Oswald, Josef ^a  

^a INNSBRUCK MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Austria)

Author keywords

Hydrocele; Isosulphan blue; Laparoscopic varicocelectomy; Lymphatic vessels; Varicocele

Indexed keywords

ISOSULFAN BLUE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; ESTHETIC SURGERY; HEMATOMA; HUMAN; HYDROCELE; INCIDENCE; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; LIGATION; LYMPH VESSEL; MALE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RECURRENT DISEASE; SCHOOL CHILD; SCROTAL PAIN; SCROTUM DISORDER; STAINING; TESTIS ATROPHY; TESTIS SIZE; TREATMENT INDICATION; VARICOCELE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CHILD; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; LIGATION; MALE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RECURRENCE; ROSANILINE DYES; TESTICULAR HYDROCELE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VARICOCELE;

EID: 33748561478     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06428.x     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Fretz PC, Sandlow JI. Varicocele: current concepts in pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Urol Clin North Am 2002; 29: 921-37
2. Cozzolino DJ, Lipshultz LI. Varicocele as a progressive lesion: positive effect of varicocele repair. Hum Reprod Update 2001; 7: 55-8
3. Redmon JB, Carey P, Pryor JL. Varicocele - the most common cause of male factor infertility? Hum Reprod Update 2002; 8: 53-8
4. Evers JL, Collins JA. Assessment of efficacy of varicocele repair for male subfertility: a systematic review. Lancet 2003; 361: 1849-52
5. Goldstein M. Surgical management of male infertility and other scrotal disorders. In Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED, Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peters CA eds, Campbell's Urology, 8th edn, Vol. 2, Chapt. 44. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 2002: 1570-8
6. Steckel J, Dicker AP, Goldstein M. Relationship between varicocele size and response to varicocelectomy. J Urol 1993; 149: 769-71
7. Steyaert H, Valla JS. Minimally invasive urologic surgery in children: an overview of what can be done. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2005; 15: 307-13
8. McManus MC, Barqawi A, Meacham RB, Furness PD 3rd, Koyle MA. Laparoscopic varicocele ligation: are there advantages compared with the microscopic subinguinal approach? Urology 2004; 64: 357-61
9. Esposito C, Monguzzi G, Gonzalez-Sabin MA et al. Results and complications of laparoscopic surgery for pediatric varicocele. J Pediatr Surg 2001; 36: 767-9
10. Kocvara R, Dvoracek J, Sedlacek J, Dite Z, Novak K. Lymphatic sparing laparoscopic varicocelectomy: a microsurgical repair. J Urol 2005; 173: 1751-4
11. Aaberg RA, Vancaillie TG, Schuessler WW. Laparoscopic varicocele ligation: a new technique. Fertil Steril 1991; 56: 776-7
12. Kass EJ, Marcol B. Results of varicocele surgery in adolescents: a comparison of techniques. J Urol 1992; 148: 694-6
13. Esposito C, Monguzzi GL, Gonzalez-Sabin MA et al. Laparoscopic treatment of pediatric varicocele: a multicenter study of the Italian society of video surgery in infancy. J Urol 2000; 163: 1944-6
14. Pintus C, Rodriguez Matas MJ, Manzoni C, Nanni L, Perrelli L. Varicocele in pediatric patients: comparative assessment of different therapeutic approaches. Urology 2001; 57: 154-7
15. Kattan S. Incidence and pattern of varicocele recurrence after laparoscopic ligation of the internal spermatic vein with preservation of the testicular artery. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1998; 32: 335-40
16. Riccabona M, Oswald J, Koen M, Lusuardi L, Radmayr C, Bartsch G. Optimizing the treatment of boys with varicocele: sequential comparison of 4 techniques. J Urol 2003; 169: 666-8
17. Rinker JR, Allen L. A lymphatic defect in hydrocele. Am Surg 1951; 17: 681-6
18. Szabo R, Kessler R. Hydrocele following internal spermatic vein ligation: a retrospective study and review of the literature. J Urol 1984; 132: 924-5
19. Kocvara R, Dolezal J, Hampl R et al. Division of lymphatic vessels at varicocelectomy leads to testicular oedema and decline in testicular function according to the LH-RH analogue stimulation test. Eur Urol 2003; 43: 430-5
20. Oswald J, Korner I, Riccabona M. The use of isosulphan blue to identify lymphatic vessels in high retroperitoneal ligation of adolescent varicocele-avoiding postoperative hydrocele. BJU Int 2001; 87: 502-4
21. Richter F, Stock JA, LaSalle M, Sadeghi-Nejad H, Hanna MK. Management of prepubertal varicoceles - results of a questionnaire study among pediatric urologists and urologists with infertility training. Urology 2001; 58: 98-102
22. Mandressi A, Buizza C, Antonelli D, Chisena S. Is laparoscopy a worthy method to treat varicocele? Comparison between 160 cases of two-port laparoscopic and 120 cases of open inguinal spermatic vein ligation. J Endourol 1996; 10: 435-41
23. Goldstein M, Gilbert BR, Dicker AP, Dwosh J, Gnecco C. Microsurgical inguinal varicocelectomy with delivery of the testis: an artery and lymphatic sparing technique. J Urol 1992; 148: 1808-11
24. Hopps CV, Lemer ML, Schlegel PN, Goldstein M. Intraoperative varicocele anatomy: a microscopic study of the inguinal versus subinguinal approach. J Urol 2003; 170: 2366-70
25. Student V, Zatura F, Scheinar J, Vrtal R, Vrana J. Testicle hemodynamics in patients after laparoscopic varicocelectomy evaluated using color Doppler sonography. Eur Urol 1998; 33: 91-3
26. May M, Johannsen M, Beutner S et al. Laparoscopic surgery versus antegrade sclerotherapy: retrospective comparison of two different approaches for varicocele treatment. Eur Urol 2006; 49: 384-7