Is microsurgical technique really necessary in inguinal or sub-inguinal surgical treatment of varicocele?

Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia

Volumn 83, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 69-74

  Gulino, Gaetano ^a   D'Onofrio, Alfonso ^a   Palermo, Giuseppe ^a   Antonucci, Michele ^a   Presicce, Fabrizio ^a   Racioppi, Marco ^a   Bassi, Pier Francesco ^a,b  

^a CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^b CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

Author keywords

Microsurgery; Outcomes; Sub inguinal ligation; Varicocele

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; EVALUATION; HUMAN; INGUINAL REGION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LENGTH OF STAY; LIGATION; MALE; MICROSURGERY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SPERMATIC VEIN; SPERMATOZOON MOTILITY; SURGICAL APPROACH; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VARICOCELE; VENOUS REFLUX; WORK RESUMPTION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; HUMANS; INGUINAL CANAL; LIGATION; MALE; MICROSURGERY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; UROLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES, MALE; VARICOCELE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 80051507050     PISSN: 11243562     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. 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. (Pubitemid 46428418)
2. Cayan S, Acar D, Ulger S, et al. Adolescent varicocele repair: long-term results and comparison of surgical techniques according to optical magnification use in 100 cases at a single university hospital. J Urol 2005; 174:2003-2006. (Pubitemid 41547008)
3. Schiff J, Kelly C, Goldstein M, et al. Managing varicoceles in children: results with microsurgical varicocelectomy. BJU Int 2005; 95:399-402. (Pubitemid 40283132)
4. Ghanem H, Anis T, El-Nashar A, et al. Subinguinal microvaricocelectomy versus retroperitoneal varicocelectomy: comparative study of complications and surgical outcome. Urology 2004; 64:1005-09. (Pubitemid 39469523)
5. Gorber ED, Chan PT, Zini A, et al. Microsurgical treatment of persistent or recurrent varicocele. Fertil Steril 2004; 82:718-722. (Pubitemid 39243198)
6. Cayan S, Kadioglu TC, Tefekli A, et al. Comparison of results andcomplications of high ligation surgery and microsurgical high inguinal varicocelectomy in the treatment of varicocele. Urology 2000; 55:750-754
7. Zini A, Fischer A, Bellack D, et al. Technical modifications of microsurgical varicocelectomy can reduce operating time. Urology 2006; 67:803-806.
8. Madgar I, Weissenberg R, Lunenfeld B, et al. Controlled trial of high spermatic vein ligation for varicocele in infertile men. Fertil Steril 1995; 63:120-124.
9. Kim ED, Leibman BB, Grinblat DM, et al. Varicocele repair improves semen parameters in azoospermic men with spermatogenic failure. J Urol 1999; 162:737-740. (Pubitemid 29436863)
10. Vermeulen A, Vanderweghe MN, Deslypere JP. Prognosis of sub-fertility in men with corrected or uncorrected varicocele. J Androl 1986; 7:147-155. (Pubitemid 16024545)
11. Lund L, Larsen SB. A follow-up study of semen quality and fertility in men with varicocele testis and in control subjects. Br J Urol 1998; 82:682-686. (Pubitemid 28497752)
12. Amelar RD. Early and late complications of inguinal varicocelectomy J Urol 2003; 170:366-369. (Pubitemid 36870201)
13. Walsh PC, White RI Jr. Balloon occlusion of the internal spermatic vein for the treatment of varicoceles. JAMA 1981; 246:1701.
14. Chan PT, Wright EJ, Goldstein M. Incidence and post-operative outcomes of accidental ligation of the testicular artery during microsurgical varicocelectomy. Fertil Steril 2001; (suppl. 76):S49, abstract 0-128.
15. Pryor JL, Howards SS. Varicocele. Urol Clin North Am 1987; 14:499.