Laparoscopic varicocelectomy in the adolescent male

Current Urology Reports

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 132-136

  Franco, Israel ^a  

^a Pediatric Urology Associates   (United States)

Author keywords

Hydrocele; Pediatric Urology; Testicular Atrophy; Trocar Site; Varicocele

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; BACK; HUMAN; LAPAROSCOPY; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PERITONEUM; REVIEW; VARICOCELE;

ADOLESCENT; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; LUMBOSACRAL REGION; MALE; PERITONEUM; VARICOCELE;

EID: 4544233314     PISSN: 15272737     EISSN: 15346285     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11934-004-0026-6     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Richter F, Stock JA, LaSalle M, et al.: Management of prepubertal varicoceles: results of a questionnaire study among pediatric urologists and urologists with infertility training. Urology 2001, 58:98–102. DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(01)01118-9
2. Lemack G, Uzzo R, Schlegel P, Goldstein M: Microsurgical repair of the adolescent varicocele. J Urol 1998, 160:179–181. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)63086-6
3. Greenfield S, Seville P, Wan J: Experience with varicoceles in children and young adults. J Urol 2002, 168:1684–1688. This study contrasts the previous study results showing that when urologists are new to a particular procedure, there is a learning curve that is present, which is clearly shown to be present in this report. Both studies have low hydrocele rates. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64388-1
4. Silveri M, Adorisio O, Pane A, et al.: Subinguinal microsurgical ligation: its effectiveness in pediatric and adolescent varicocele. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2003, 37:53–54. DOI: 10.1080/00365590310008703
5. Kuenkel MR, Korth K: Rationale for antegrade sclerotherapy in varicoceles. Eur Urol 1995, 27:13–17.
6. Sautter T, Sulser T, Suter S, et al.: Treatment of varicocele: a prospective randomized comparison of laparoscopy versus antegrade sclerotherapy. Eur Urol 2002, 41:398–400. DOI: 10.1016/S0302-2838(02)00022-2
7. Mazzoni G, Spagnoli A, Lucchetti MC, et al.: Adolescent varicocele: tauber antegrade sclerotherapy versus Palomo repair. J Urol 2001, 166:1462–1464. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65810-7
8. Kass EJ, Marcol B: Results of varicocele surgery in adolescents: a comparison of techniques. J Urol 1992, 148:694–696.
9. Dolan D, Samadi A, Palmer L, Franco I: A randomized comparison of laparoscopic vs. open varicocelectomy in the pediatric population.Presented at 20th World Congress of Endourology and SWL. Genoa, Italy: September 2002. J Endourol 2002, 16(suppl 1):A79.
10. Podkamenev VV, Stalmakhovich VN, Urkov PS, et al.: Laparoscopic surgery for pediatric varicoceles: randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr Surg 2002, 37:727–729. DOI: 10.1053/jpsu.2002.32264
11. Abdulmaaboud MR, Shokeir AA, Farage Y, et al.: Treatment of varicocele: a comparative study of conventional open surgery, percutaneous retrograde sclerotherapy, and laparoscopy. Urology 1998, 52:294–300. DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00178-2
12. Riccabona M, Oswald J, Koen M, et al.: Optimizing the operative treatment of boys with varicocele: sequential comparison of 4 techniques. J Urol 2003, 169:666–668. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)63988-2
13. Koyle M, Furness P, Barqawi A: Laparoscopic Palomo varicocele ligation in children and adolescents. Ped Endosurg Innov Techn 2003, 6:15–19. DOI: 10.1089/10926410252832393
14. Misseri R, Gershbein AB, Horowitz M, Glassberg KI: The adolescent varicocele. II: the incidence of hydrocele and delayed recurrent varicocele after varicocelectomy in a long-term follow-up. BJU Int 2001, 87:494–498. This paper confirms that studies with follow-up periods of less than 3 years can lead to misinformation, especially when it comes to reporting hydrocele rates. DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410X.2001.00110.x
15. Misseri R, Glassberg K: Laparoscopic varicocelectomy: Is there an Advantage? Presented at 20th World Congress of Endourology and SWL. Genoa, Italy: September 2002. J Endourol 2002, 16(suppl 1):A78.
16. Levitt S, Gill B, Katlowitz N, et al.: Routine intraoperative post-ligation venography in the pediatric varicocele. J Urol 1987, 137:716–718.
17. Palmer LS, Cohen S, Reda EF, et al.: Intraoperative spermatic venography reconsidered. J Urol 1995, 154:225–227. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)67282-3
18. Gill B, Kogan SJ, Maldonado J, et al.: Significance of intraoperative venographic patterns on the postoperative recurrence and surgical incision placement of pediatric varicoceles. J Urol 1990, 144:502–505.
19. Sergey K, Oleg K, Yihiel B, et al.: Laparoscopic Palomo procedure: the impact of internal spermatic artery ligation on testicular blood flow. Ped Endosurg Innov Tech 2003, 7:297–301. This paper is useful in helping us understand the flow dynamics of varicoceles. This study may explain the cause of painful varicoceles. DOI: 10.1089/109264103322381717
20. Barqawi A, Furness P III, Koyle M: Laparoscopic Palomo varicocelectomy in the adolescent is safe after previous ipsilateral inguinal surgery. BJU Int 2002, 89:269–272. This paper helps allay fears that many surgeons have regarding the Palomo mass ligation varicocelectomy with regard to the patient who had prior inguinal surgery. It is not a definitive study and by no means is it 100% safe to say that testicular atrophy could never happen in a patient who had groin surgery. The numbers in the study are too small to have any type of real statistical significance because the likelyhood of a vascular accident during inguinal surgery is in single digits, thereby necessitating hundreds if not thousands of patients who underwent inguinal surgery to have varicocele repairs to be able to make a definitive statement. DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-4096.2001.01623.x
21. Esposito C, Monguzzi G, Gonzalez-Sabin M, et al.: Laparoscopic treatment of pediatric varicocele: a multicenter study of the Italian society of video surgery in infancy. J Urol 2000, 163:1944–1946. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67604-5