Comparison of treatment outcomes of different spermatic vein ligation procedures in varicocele treatment

American Journal of Therapeutics

Volumn 23, Issue 6, 2016, Pages e1329-e1334

  Lv, Jin Xing ^a   Wang, Liang Liang ^a   Wei, Xue Dong ^a   Zhang, Zhen ^a   Zheng, Tian Lan ^a   Huang, Yu Hua ^a   Zhou, Jian ^a   Xia, Fei ^a   Pu, Jin Xian ^a  

^a THE FIRST AFFILIATED HOSPITAL OF SOOCHOW UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Complications; Laparoscopic varicocelectomy; Microscopic inguinal varicocelectomy; Microscopic retroperitoneal varicocelectomy; Microscopic subinguinal varicocelectomy; Recurrence; Semen quality; Varicocele

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATROPHY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HUMAN; LAPAROSCOPY; LIGATION; MALE; MICROSURGERY; OPERATION DURATION; PAIN; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; RECURRENT DISEASE; RETROPERITONEUM; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCROTUM; SEMEN ANALYSIS; SPERMATOZOON COUNT; TESTIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VARICOCELE; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATROPHY; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; LIGATION; MALE; MICROSURGERY; OPERATIVE TIME; PAIN; RECURRENCE; RETROPERITONEAL SPACE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SCROTUM; SEMEN ANALYSIS; SPERM COUNT; TESTIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VARICOCELE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84995801643     PISSN: 10752765     EISSN: 15363686     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000000232     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Mostafa T, Rashed LA, Osman I, et al. Seminal plasma oxytocin and oxidative stress levels in infertile men with varicocele. Andrologia. 2014;47:209-213.
2. Miyaoka R, Esteves SC. A critical appraisal on the role of varicocele in male infertility. Adv Urol. 2012;2012:597495.
3. Milone M, Musella M, Fernandez ME, et al. Varicocele repair in severe oligozoospermia: a case report of postoperative azoospermia. World J Clin Cases. 2014;2:94-96.
4. Hosseinifar H, Sabbaghian M, Nasrabadi D, et al. Study of the effect of varicocelectomy on sperm proteins expression in patients with varicocele and poor sperm quality by using two-dimensional gel electrophoresis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:725-729.
5. Nork JJ, Berger JH, Crain DS, et al. Youth varicocele and varicocele treatment: a meta-analysis of semen outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:381-387. e386.
6. Samplaski MK, Yu C, Kattan MW, et al. Nomograms for predicting changes in semen parameters in infertile men after varicocele repair. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:68-74.
7. Grasso M, Lania C, Blanco S, et al. Efficacy of spermatic vein ligation in patients affected by high grade left varicocele. Int Braz J Urol. 2014;40:62-66.
8. Borruto FA, Impellizzeri P, Antonuccio P, et al. Laparoscopic vs open varicocelectomy in children and adolescents: review of the recent literature and meta-analysis. J Pediatr Surg. 2010;45:2464-2469.
9. Kim KS, Lee C, Song SH, et al. Impact of internal spermatic artery preservation during laparoscopic varicocelectomy on recurrence and the catch-up growth rate in adolescents. J Pediatr Urol. 2014;10:435-440.
10. Nees SN, Glassberg KI. Observations on hydroceles following adolescent varicocelectomy. J Urol. 2011;186:2402-2407.
11. Zhang M, Du L, Liu Z, et al. The effects of varicocelectomy on testicular arterial blood flow: laparoscopic surgery versus microsurgery. Urol J. 2014;11:1900-1906.
12. Shiraishi K, Oka S, Ito H, et al. Comparison of the results and complications of retroperitoneal, microsurgical subinguinal, and high inguinal approaches in the treatment of varicoceles. J Androl. 2012;33:1387-1393.
13. Diegidio P, Jhaveri JK, Ghannam S, et al. Review of current varicocelectomy techniques and their outcomes. BJU Int. 2011;108:1157-1172.
14. Zhang H, Liu XP, Yang XJ, et al. Loupe-assisted versus microscopic varicocelectomy: is there an intraoperative anatomic difference? Asian J Androl. 2014;16: 112-114.
15. Niyogi A, Singh S, Zaman A, et al. Varicocele surgery: 10 years of experience in two pediatric surgical centers. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012;22:521-525.
16. 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; discussion 2006-2007.
17. Rais-Bahrami S, Montag S, George AK, et al. Angiographic findings of primary versus salvage varicoceles treated with selective gonadal vein embolization: an explanation for surgical treatment failure. J Endourol. 2012;26:556-560.
18. Christakis PG, Cimsit B, Kulkarni S. Complication arising from a duplicated inferior vena cava following laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: a case report. Transplant Proc. 2012;44:1450-1452.
19. Park YW, Lee JH. Preoperative predictors of varicocelectomy success in the treatment of testicular pain. World J Mens Health. 2013;31:58-63.
20. Armagan A, Ergun O, Bas E, et al. Long-term effects of microsurgical varicocelectomy on pain and sperm parameters in clinical varicocele patients with scrotal pain complaints. Andrologia. 2012;44(Suppl 1):611-614.
21. Chen SS, Chen LK. Risk factors for progressive deterioration of semen quality in patients with varicocele. Urology. 2012;79:128-132.
22. Cho SY, Kim TB, Ku JH, et al. Beneficial effects of microsurgical varicocelectomy on semen parameters in patients who underwent surgery for causes other than infertility. Urology. 2011;77:1107-1110.
23. Moon KH, Cho SJ, Kim KS, et al. Recurrent varicoceles: causes and treatment using angiography and magnification assisted subinguinal varicocelectomy. Yonsei Med J. 2012;53:723-728.
24. Mirilas P, Mentessidou A. Microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy in children, adolescents, and adults: surgical anatomy and anatomically justified technique. J Androl. 2012;33:338-349.
25. 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.
26. Liu X, Zhang H, Ruan X, et al. Macroscopic and microsurgical varicocelectomy: what's the intraoperative difference? World J Urol. 2013;31:603-608.
27. Kim SO, Jung H, Park K. Outcomes of microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy for painful varicoceles. J Androl. 2012;33:872-875.
28. Soylemez H, Penbegul N, Atar M, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and microscopic subinguinal varicocelectomy in terms of postoperative scrotal pain. JSLS. 2012;16:212-217.
29. Hsiao W, Rosoff JS, Pale JR, et al. Older age is associated with similar improvements in semen parameters and testosterone after subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy. J Urol. 2011;185:620-625.