Microsurgical Varicocelectomy: Experience of Our Sub-Subinguinal Approach and Review of the Literature

Liu, Hanchao; Chen, Rui; Wu, Xiaolong; Zhang, Mingxiao; Li, Zhengzheng; Hua, Lin; Zhan, Junfeng; Dong, Biao; Wang, Zhenqing; Sun, Zhuolun; Li, Xiaotao; Liu, Jiaqin; Wang, Xiaodong; Shen, Ming; Xie, Chong; Jiang, Zhuanxin

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9937114

Andrologia

On this page

Abstract Introduction Methods Discussion Conclusion Data Availability Ethical Approval Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2023 | Article ID 9937114 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9937114

Microsurgical Varicocelectomy: Experience of Our Sub-Subinguinal Approach and Review of the Literature

Hanchao Liu,^1,2Rui Chen,¹Xiaolong Wu,²Mingxiao Zhang,³Zhengzheng Li,²Lin Hua,²Junfeng Zhan,²Biao Dong,¹Zhenqing Wang,⁴Zhuolun Sun,⁴Xiaotao Li,¹and Jiaqin Liu¹ et al.

Academic Editor: R. Henkel

Received20 Dec 2022

Revised21 May 2023

Accepted30 Jun 2023

Published27 Jul 2023

Abstract

Objective. To discuss the experience with a novel surgical approach in the treatment of varicocele for fertility or pain in 772 patients. Methods. Retrospective analysis of 772 patients undergoing microsurgical sub-subinguinal (SSI) varicocelectomy in our hospital and the discussion of historical surgical approaches. Results. A total of 690 patients with left varicocele underwent surgical treatment for infertility (n = 519) and pain (n = 171). The sperm concentrations (mean ± standard deviation (SD)) of 519 patients measured preoperatively, 6 months postoperatively, and 12 months postoperatively were 19.24 ± 3.69 (10⁶/ml), 27.42 ± 10.32 (10⁶/ml), and 34.20 ± 16.29 (10⁶/ml) (), respectively. The sperm motilities (mean ± SD) of 519 patients measured preoperatively, 6 months postoperatively, and 12 months postoperatively were 13.78 ± 3.25, 20.98 ± 8.21, and 27.59 ± 13.71 (grade (a + b) %) (), respectively. Pain was released surgically in 131 (76.6%) of the 171 patients. A total of 82 patients with bilateral varicocele underwent surgical treatment for infertility (n = 58) and pain (n = 24). The sperm concentrations (mean ± SD) of 58 patients measured preoperatively, 6 months postoperatively, and 12 months postoperatively were 19.21 ± 3.24 (10⁶/ml), 27.36 ± 10.26 (10⁶/ml), and 33.87 ± 15.20 (10⁶/ml) (), respectively. The sperm motilities (mean ± SD) of 58 patients measured preoperatively, 6 months postoperatively, and 12 months postoperatively were 13.54 ± 2.75, 20.75 ± 8.21, and 28.53 ± 14.83 (grade (a + b) %) (), respectively. Pain was released surgically in 19 (79.2%) of the 24 patients. The probability of occurrence in one artery, two arteries, three arteries, and more than three arteries was 29.5%, 28.8%, 19.9%, and 1.9%, respectively. Conclusion. This surgical approach achieves a small and esthetic skin wound with fewer complications. The SSI approach is a safe and widely adopted surgical approach option for the treatment of varicocele.

1. Introduction

The prevalence of varicocele is approximately 10%–15% in the adult male population; approximately 35% of cases are associated with infertility, and 10% of cases are associated with testicular pain [1]. Surgical solutions for infertility or pain caused by varicocele have been widely promoted by doctors and guidelines worldwide [1]. The surgical treatment options for varicocele are numerous, including open ligation [2, 3], laparoscopic high ligation [4, 5], microsurgical varicocelectomy (MV) [6, 7], and embolization of the spermatic vein [8, 9].

MV is superior for identifying and protecting the testicular arteries and lymphatic vessels by magnifying the contents of the spermatic cord through a surgical microscope. MV is also useful for identifying small spermatic veins for ligation; this greatly reduces surgical complications and postoperative recurrence rates and has led to MV being recognized as the gold standard surgical procedure for varicocele. MV has been performed in our hospitals following study of the procedure by Goldstein et al. [6].

Here, our hospitals started to perform MV by using a sub-subinguinal (SSI) surgical approach in 2014 with continuous review of the operation due to the increasing demand for enhanced esthetics by many patients. From February 2014 to August 2020, we performed approximately 1,400 MV operations using our novel SSI approach in the Department of Andrology or Urology in several hospitals. A total of 772 patients with complete follow-up data of varicocele were included in this study. Herein, the experience and data of this surgical approach are analyzed and discussed.

2. Methods

2.1. Patient Characteristics

The 772 patients included in this study were aged between 20 and 50 years old, and all patients had a color Doppler ultrasound performed (diameter of the internal spermatic vein greater than 3 mm and/or venous reflux greater than 4 s), imaging grade III. Varicoceles were diagnosed by physical examination and were grade 2 or 3. All of the patients had symptoms of male infertility (primary infertility for more than 1 year, abnormal sperm concentration and motility [10], normal gynecologic assessment in the patient’s partner) or unbearable pain; all patients had no significant abnormalities in the preoperative sex hormone panel, and the volume of each testis was >12 ml. Secondary varicocele and other specific diseases causing intolerability of the surgical procedure were excluded. All patients included in this study had complete follow-up information, and the study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine (Approval NO.: 2022-0406).

2.2. Surgical Procedures, Perioperative Management, and Follow-Up Information

The surgical protocol is shown in Figure 1(a) (steps (1) to (6)). All procedures were performed by or under the supervision of MD. Jiang, MD. Shen, and MD. Xie. First, two fingers were used to identify the spermatic cord at the point where it travels under the skin, and a small knife was used to make an incision on the skin surface in the direction of the skin texture (1–1.5 cm). The subcutaneous tissue and superficial fascia were bluntly separated to expose the spermatic cord, and this was grasped with curved forceps. The spermatic cord was picked up with a 14 Fr drainage tube, and the external fascia of the spermatic cord was opened to expose the contents of the spermatic cord. Then, the vas deferens plexus was separated and isolated with a 14 Fr drainage tube, with care taken to protect the vas deferens artery. The internal spermatic veins were separated and ligated layer by layer under a microscope, and the lymphatics and arteries were protected. After ligation of the internal spermatic veins, the entire spermatic cord was observed. Then, the thick (>3 mm) external spermatic veins and vas deferens veins were also ligated. Finally, the outer sheath of the spermatic cord was closed, the spermatic cord was retracted, and the incision was closed in sequence.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 1

Schematic diagram of the surgical approach. (a) SSI approach diagram. (1) Appearance of the male perineum and lower abdomen. (2) Projection of the spermatic cord on the body surface. (3) Two fingers perceive the outline of the spermatic cord at the junction of the scrotum and lower abdominal skin. (4) Position the incision above the spermatic cord. (5) The skin was cut, the superficial fascia was separated, and the spermatic cord was lifted with curved forceps. (6) The method of separating the external fascia of the spermatic cord was consistent with that of microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy. (b) SSI approach during the operation. (1) Two fingers sense the spermatic cord alignment to determine the incision location. (2) The size of the incision is approximately 1–1.5 cm. (3) The spermatic cord is lifted with forceps. (4) The sensory cord was raised with a 14 Fr drainage tube. (5) The external fascia of the spermatic cord is separated, and then the vas deferens is exposed. (6) The vas deferens is protected by compression with another 14 Fr drainage tube. (c) (1) Surgical approaches in MV. (2)–(4) Our approach before and after operation. (d) Comparison of our surgical approach with subinguinal approach.

Postoperative treatment and follow-up: after surgery, small towels were used to support the scrotum and testicles, and the patients rested in bed for 8–12 hr. The patient was allowed to ambulate and leave the hospital at 8–12 hr after surgery. Follow-up was performed 7–15 days after surgery to observe wound recovery. At 6 and 12 months after surgery, complications, such as hydrocele, recurrence, and testicular atrophy, were monitored; additionally, sperm concentration and motility were checked.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The classification of patients included in our retrospective study is shown in Figure 2. Quantitative variables are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD). An analysis of variance shows the differences between the three groups of data. If the result yielded a value of , Fisher’s least significant difference was used to further analyze whether there were significant differences between the two groups. Statistical analysis was carried out with the statistical software SPSS 22.0, and the levels of significance were and .

3. Result

3.1. Results of Surgery for Infertility in Left Varicocele Patients

A total of 690 patients included in this study had left varicocele; among these patients, 519 were treated for infertility (Figure 2). The sperm concentrations (mean ± SD) of 519 patients measured preoperatively, 6 months postoperatively, and 12 months postoperatively were 19.24 ± 3.69 (10⁶/ml), 27.42 ± 10.32 (10⁶/ml), and 34.20 ± 16.29 (10⁶/ml) (), respectively. The sperm motilities (mean ± SD) of 519 patients measured preoperatively, 6 months postoperatively, and 12 months postoperatively were 13.78 ± 3.25, 20.98 ± 8.21, and 27.59 ± 13.71 (grade (a + b) %) (), respectively. The results are shown in Table 1. Among the 519 patients treated for infertility, 327 patients showed significant improvement in sperm quality. The sperm concentrations (mean ± SD) of these 327 patients measured preoperatively, 6 months postoperatively, and 12 months postoperatively were 19.23 ± 3.42 (10⁶/ml), 34.52 ± 5.13 (10⁶/ml), and 45.75 ± 7.54 (10⁶/ml); the mean sperm viability grade (a + b) percentage measured preoperatively, 6 months postoperatively and 12 months postoperatively was 13.43 ± 3.64, 26.23 ± 5.54, and 37.27 ± 6.59, respectively. The results are shown in Table 2.

3.2. Results of Surgery for Pain in Left Varicocele Patients

A total of 171 patients were treated for pain (mean age: 28.4 ± 4.2); the pain disappeared in 131 patients as a result of surgery, with a pain relief rate of 76.6%.

3.3. Results of Surgery for Infertility in Bilateral Varicocele Patients

A total of 82 patients included in this study had bilateral varicocele; among these patients, 58 patients were treated for infertility (Figure 2). The sperm concentrations (mean ± SD) of 82 patients measured preoperatively, 6 months postoperatively, and 12 months postoperatively were 19.21 ± 3.24 (10⁶/ml), 27.36 ± 10.26 (10⁶/ml), and 33.87 ± 15.20 (10⁶/ml) (), respectively. The sperm motilities (mean ± SD) of 519 patients measured preoperatively, 6 months postoperatively, and 12 months postoperatively were 13.54 ± 2.75, 20.75 ± 8.21, and 28.53 ± 14.83 (grade (a + b)) (), respectively. The results are shown in Table 2. Of the 58 patients with infertility, 38 patients showed significant improvement in sperm quality. The sperm concentrations (mean ± SD) of these 38 patients measured preoperatively, 6 months postoperatively, and 12 months postoperatively were 19.26 ± 3.12 (10⁶/ml); 33.76 ± 6.12 (10⁶/ml); 43.56 ± 8.55 (10⁶/ml); the mean sperm viability grade (a + b) percentage measured preoperatively, 6 months postoperatively, and 12 months postoperatively was 13.24 ± 3.17, 25.35 ± 6.14, 38.23 ± 7.65. The results are shown in Table 2.

3.4. Results of Surgery for Pain in Left Varicocele Patients

A total of 24 patients were treated for pain (mean age: 28.3 ± 5.5); pain disappeared in 19 patients as a result of surgery, with a pain relief rate of 79.2%.

3.5. Complications

The complications of left varicocelectomy (Table 1) were as follows: recurrence of varicocele 3/690 (0.43%), fat liquefaction 3/690 (0.43%), incision infection 1/690 (0.14%), testicular atrophy 0/690, epididymitis 0/690, scrotal hematoma 5/690 (0.72%), hydrocele 0/690, edema (7 days) 55/690 (7.97%), and edema (14 days) 0/690.

The complications of bilateral varicocelectomy (Table 1) were as follows: recurrence of varicocele 1/164 (0.61%), fat liquefaction 0/164, wound infection 0/164, testicular atrophy 0/164, epididymitis 0/164, scrotal hematoma 1/82 (1.22%), hydrocele 0/164, edema (7 days) 15/82 (18.29%), and edema (14 days) 0/82.

3.6. Number of Arteries

According to our intraoperative statistics, the probability of occurrence in one artery, two arteries, three arteries, and three or more arteries was 29.5%, 28.8%, 19.9%, and 1.9%, respectively (Figure 3).

4. Discussion

Varicocele has been known to trouble men’s physical and mental health for a long time, and the development of surgical methods has spanned almost a century. Herein, we summarize the history of classical surgical methods and complications of varicocelectomy (Table 3). In the 1920s, Ivanissevich [3] started to perform varicocele ligation with an open inguinal approach and achieved good results. In 1947, Palomo [2] introduced open high ligation of varicocelectomy with a retroperitoneal approach and provided the details of the surgical protocol, which has been widely adopted with good results. From 1982 to 1992, Ross and Ruppman [11] concluded that open inguinal varicocelectomy has good efficacy; however, the recurrence rate of open surgery is high from today’s perspective.

In the 1990s, with the explosion of technology, advanced interventional, microscopic, and laparoscopic equipment were introduced to the clinical setting. In 1992, Mehan et al. [4] demonstrated laparoscopic high ligation of the spermatic vein with the help of laparoscopy. This surgical option greatly reduced the operative time, especially in the management of bilateral varicocele. However, complications associated with laparoscopy also arose, such as scrotal emphysema, shoulder pain, and other laparoscopy-related complications. In the following 2 years, Jarow et al. [12], Ralph et al. [13], and Enquist et al. [14] used laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of varicocele; despite less surgical bleeding and decreases in wound infection rates, the recurrence rate and laparoscopy-related complications remained high. Yavetz et al. [9] treated varicocele by embolization; however, a high probability of recurrence still existed. Meanwhile, Tauber and Johnsen [8] found that embolization also had a high probability of surgery failure. In 1992, Goldstein et al. [6] introduced microscopic subinguinal varicocelectomy, a more minimally invasive and accurate surgical method. By ligating all veins one by one under the microscope and preserving the lymphatics and arteries, the patient had a better prognosis and fewer complications. In 1993, Ito et al. [15] and in 1994, Marmar and Kim [7] also adopted microscopic subinguinal varicocelectomy with sparing lymphatics and arteries. They reported more precision ligation, a high success rate and fewer complications. Thus, the four basic surgical concepts of surgical treatment of varicocele, namely, open surgery, microscopic varicocelectomy, embolization of varicocele and laparoscopic varicocelectomy, were established.

In the following 30 years, almost all the surgical treatments of varicocele around the world have originated from these four concepts. In 1996, Mandressi et al. [5] used a two-port laparoscope for high ligation of varicocele and found that the incision was less likely to be infected and necrotic than in open surgery. Indeed, the vertical puncture channel caused less damage to the blood supply of subcutaneous fat and did not easily lead to fat liquefaction and wound infection. Additionally, laparoscopic surgery for bilateral varicocele had a unique speed advantage. However, previous studies have indicated that laparoscopic surgery leads to a high recurrence rate and a high probability of postoperative complications, including hydrocele and the unavoidable laparoscopic complications, which are disadvantageous; however, the laparoscopic surgical method benefits from a short operation time and fewer wound infections [16–23]. Simforoosh et al. [24] found that laparoscopic outcomes and complications were similar to those of traditional open ligation of varicocele. Zampieri et al. [25] reported laparoscopic varicocelectomy with artery preservation. However, it was found that this procedure leads to a high recurrence rate due to the high probability of missing tiny veins. In 2016, Lv et al. [21] reported that the probability of testicular atrophy in laparoscopic varicocelectomy was also higher than that in other surgical options. Perhaps this type of surgical option is preferred by urologists who are accustomed to laparoscopic surgery.

With the advent of robots, various types of surgeries assisted by robots are gradually emerging. In 2018, McCullough et al. [26] thought open surgery of the subinguinal approach assisted by robots has achieved good results. In 2020, Teng et al. [27] launched robotic-assisted laparoscopic artery-sparing varicocelectomy using indocyanine green fluorescence angiography achieved better arteries spare. Napolitano et al. [28] believed with the help of robots, a high-quality, 3D visualization and less tremor can contribute to the precision of surgery. However, the high cost of using robots must be taken into account.

At the same time, radiation therapy techniques were also used to seek solutions for varicocele. With the help of radiation equipment, vascular embolization or injection of sclerosing agents made the surgical incision smaller and more esthetic; however, they also led to a higher rate of surgical failure and recurrence [29–34]. In 1994, Tauber and Johnsen [8] reported 285 cases of antegrade scrotal sclerotherapy and 57 surgical failures out of 285 surgeries. In 1997, Shlansky-Goldberg et al. [35] reported 197 cases treated with percutaneous vascular embolization, of which 25 were surgical failures. In 2004, Nabi et al. [29] performed varicocele embolization in 71 patients, and three cases of failure were noted. In 2008, Galfano et al. [31] performed antegrade scrotal sclerotherapy on 800 patients with varicocele, and the surgical failure rate of the operation was nearly 10%. Compared with open inguinal or laparoscopic surgery, these methods have no advantages except for the esthetics of the skin incision after operation [32, 34, 36]. Other relevant studies have suggested that the new type of varicocele bypass vein anastomosis surgery is more aligned with human anatomy than venous embolism and can achieve etiological treatment [37]. However, it is still difficult to accurately judge the efficacy of bypass surgery and the standard of postoperative reexamination. At the same time, vein anastomosis surgery increases the chance of thrombosis and greatly prolongs the operation time; however, this is controversial [38]. A small percutaneous incision is more esthetic, and this is a factor that patients and doctors use to determine the optimal surgical option. Our research found that the size of our surgical incision was 1–1.5 cm, which is almost the same as that of embolization treatment. It is difficult to detect the surgical incision with the naked eye due to skin wrinkles and body hair after surgery.

Undoubtedly, MV is a significant improvement over traditional open surgery. With the help of a microscope, protection of the arteries and lymphatic vessels and ligation of all the veins can be attained. Although the operation time is prolonged, the surgical method achieves the best outcomes in terms of protecting the blood supply to the testes and reducing postoperative complications. MV also has obvious advantages over other procedures, including better prognosis and fewer complications, which have made this procedure a popular choice for doctors worldwide [18, 20, 39–48].

In recent years, with the help of microscopy, international researchers have proposed new surgical approaches based on this subinguinal approach and have also achieved good outcomes. In 2000, Cayan et al. [49] completed microscopic high inguinal varicocelectomy with the help of microscopy and concluded that high inguinal microscopic spermatic vein ligation achieves better treatment results and fewer complications than the traditional open retroperitoneal approach. In 2005, Orhan et al. [50] considered that the number of ligated veins in the high inguinal position was fewer than that in the subinguinal position; furthermore, the probability of postoperative recurrence was lower in high inguinal surgery. In 2012, Shiraishi et al. [51] presented the results of microscopic high ligation and argued that high ligation has greater advantages in terms of reduced postoperative pain and shorter operative time because there are fewer and higher venous branches. Furthermore, in 2016, Shiraishi et al. [52] compared treatment with high inguinal and subinguinal approaches, and they concluded that the treatment outcome was similar. The high inguinal approach was easier to perform, and the smaller number of veins and thicker arteries facilitated protection of the arteries and shortened the operation time. Lv et al. [21] found that the microscopic subinguinal approach had superior safety and fewer complications than the other three approaches: microscopic high inguinal, microscopic retroperitoneal and laparoscopic surgery. In 2019, Demirdöğen et al. [53] showed that the therapeutic effects and complications of varicocelectomy through the subinguinal and internal inguinal regions were similar.

Most doctors believe that the complications of the subinguinal approach are lower than those of the high inguinal approach, which has difficulty dealing with the external spermatic vein and delivery of the testis. We think that varicocelectomy with the subinguinal approach can avoid cutting muscles, tendon sheaths, and other tissues as much as possible, which will shorten the recovery time after the operation. Additionally, the external spermatic vein and the vas deferens vein can be ligated easily. Meanwhile, a subinguinal approach can be performed with easy testis delivery. Although the efficacy of this approach is controversial [54], it gives the surgeon an additional option. The incision is smaller with a lower position, which better meets the esthetic requirements of patients. Moreover, the recurrence rate and other complications after microscopic subinguinal varicocelectomy can be minimized by carefully identifying the veins under the microscope during the operation.

Surgical treatment of varicocele can alleviate symptoms in male patients with low testosterone, testicular pain, or infertility. Subinguinal surgical approach under the microscope, in accordance with previous research, has been widely promoted in China since 2010 [55], and it is favored by andrologists and patients. In the past few years, we performed microscopic subinguinal varicocelectomy and accumulated some surgical experience. Due to the increase in patients’ esthetic requirements and better in-depth understanding of anatomy, we have adopted a lower position. MV for the treatment of varicocele has a similar therapeutic effect to that reported in the literature we reviewed, with a smaller incision and faster healing. There is less fat at the junction between the scrotum and lower abdominal perineum skin. Thus, the spermatic cord runs shallowly. The position of the spermatic cord can be approximated by palpation with two fingers, which is helpful for positioning the incision during the operation. Less subcutaneous fat puts less pressure on both sides of the spermatic cord after the spermatic cord is pulled out of the body. This makes pulsation of the artery clearer and easier to identify during the operation. Additionally, less subcutaneous fat greatly reduces the probability of wound infection and fat liquefaction. An incision that is only 1–1.5 cm along the skin texture can meet the esthetic requirements of patients. Furthermore, if the surgeon wants to perform the SSI approach with testis delivery, only a slight extension of the incision along the skin line is needed. Based on our comprehensive analysis of surgical complications and therapeutic effects, we conclude that our surgical approach is both safe and effective.

And there are also some limitations in our research: pain was quantified based on the patient’s subjective feelings and the use of a pain scoring questionnaire was ignored. The operation time not mentioned in the research, according to doctors’ experience, it’s almost similar with classical MV. And due to the fact that the impact on female pregnancy rate not only requires good sperm quality in males, but also many factors in females, we did not take pregnancy rate into account when calculating the outcome of varicocele.

5. Conclusion

We analyzed the outcomes of 772 patients who underwent microscopic SSI varicocelectomy at our hospitals. We concluded that our surgical approach achieves outcomes that are comparable to those of other MVs, with the advantages of small incisions with fewer complications. Therefore, this surgical approach can be routinely performed for MV.

Data Availability

The original data and pictures are saved by the corresponding author, which can be shared upon reasonable request.

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine (approval no.: 2022-0406).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

Zhuanxin Jiang, Ming Shen, and Chong Xie conceived the study. Hanchao Liu, Rui Chen, Xiaolong Wu, Mingxiao Zhang, Zhengzheng Li, Lin Hua, Junfeng Zhan, Biao Dong, Zhenqing Wang, Zhuolun Sun, Xiaotao Li, Jiaqin Liu, and Xiaodong Wang provided samples and clinical data. Chong Xie performed statistical analyses. Hanchao Liu, Rui Chen, and Xiaolong Wu wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the final version of the manuscript. Hanchao Liu, Rui Chen, and Xiaolong Wu contributed equally to this work.

References

S. Minhas, C. Bettocchi, L. Boeri et al., “European association of urology guidelines on male sexual and reproductive health: 2021 update on male infertility,” European Urology, vol. 80, no. 5, pp. 603–620, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Palomo, “Radical cure of varicocele by a new technique: preliminary report,” The Journal of Urology, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 604–607, 1949.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Ivanissevich, “[Left varicocele caused by reflux. Study based on 42 years of clinicosurgical experience with 4470 operated cases],” La Semana Medica, vol. 118, pp. 1157–1170, 1961.
View at: Google Scholar
D. J. Mehan, C. H. Andrus, and R. O. Parra, “Laparoscopic internal spermatic vein ligation: report of a new technique,” Fertility and Sterility, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 1263–1266, 1992.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Mandressi, C. Buizza, D. Antonelli, and S. Chisena, “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,” Journal of Endourology, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 435–441, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Goldstein, B. R. Gilbert, A. P. Dicker, J. Dwosh, and C. Gnecco, “Microsurgical inguinal varicocelectomy with delivery of the testis: an artery and lymphatic sparing technique,” The Journal of Urology, vol. 148, no. 6, pp. 1808–1811, 1992.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. L. Marmar and Y. Kim, “Subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy: a technical critique and statistical analysis of semen and pregnancy data,” The Journal of Urology, vol. 152, no. 4, pp. 1127–1132, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Tauber and N. Johnsen, “Antegrade scrotal sclerotherapy for the treatment of varicocele: technique and late results,” The Journal of Urology, vol. 151, no. 2, pp. 386–390, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Yavetz, R. Levy, J. Papo et al., “Efficacy of varicocele embolization versus ligation of the left internal spermatic vein for improvement of sperm quality,” International Journal of Andrology, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 338–344, 1992.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. C. Esteves, “Evolution of the World Health Organization semen analysis manual: where are we?” Nature Reviews Urology, vol. 19, pp. 439–446, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. S. Ross and N. Ruppman, “Varicocele vein ligation in 565 patients under local anesthesia: a long-term review of technique, results and complications in light of proposed management by laparoscopy,” The Journal of Urology, vol. 149, no. 5 Part 2, pp. 1361–1363, 1993.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. P. Jarow, D. G. Assimos, and D. E. Pittaway, “Effectiveness of laparoscopic varicocelectomy,” Urology, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 544–547, 1993.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. J. Ralph, A. G. Timoney, C. Parker, and J. P. Pryor, “Laparoscopic varicocele ligation,” British Journal of Urology, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 230–233, 1993.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Enquist, B. S. Stein, and M. Sigman, “Laparoscopic versus subinguinal varicocelectomy: a comparative study,” Fertility and Sterility, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 1092–1096, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Ito, T. Kotake, M. Hamano, and S. Yanagi, “Results obtained from microsurgical therapy of varicocele,” Urologia Internationalis, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 225–227, 1993.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. M. Tan, F. C. Ng, T. Ravintharan, P. H. C. Lim, and H. C. Chng, “Laparoscopic varicocelectomy: technique and results,” British Journal of Urology, vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 523–528, 1995.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. D. Miersch, G. Schoeneich, P. Winter, and H. Buszello, “Laparoscopic varicocelectomy: indication, technique and surgical results,” British Journal of Urology, vol. 76, no. 5, pp. 636–638, 1995.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Watanabe, A. Nagai, N. Kusumi, H. Tsuboi, Y. Nasu, and H. Kumon, “Minimal invasiveness and effectivity of subinguinal microscopic varicocelectomy: a comparative study with retroperitoneal high and laparoscopic approaches,” International Journal of Urology, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 892–898, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Al-Hunayan, H. Abdulhalim, E. O. Kehinde, E. El-Barky, K. Al-Awadi, and A. Al-Ateeqi, “Two-trocar laparoscopic varicocelectomy: cost-reduction surgical technique,” Urology, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 461–465, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Al-Kandari, H. Shabaan, H. M. Ibrahim, Y. H. Elshebiny, and A. A. Shokeir, “Comparison of outcomes of different varicocelectomy techniques: open inguinal, laparoscopic, and subinguinal microscopic varicocelectomy: a randomized clinical trial,” Urology, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 417–420, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J.-X. Lv, L.-L. Wang, X.-D. Wei et al., “Comparison of treatment outcomes of different spermatic vein ligation procedures in varicocele treatment,” American Journal of Therapeutics, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. e1329–e1334, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. F. Milad, T. A. Zein, E. A. Hussein, F. M. Ayyat, M. P. Schneider, and G. R. Sant, “Laparoscopic varicocelectomy for infertility,” European Urology, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 462–465, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Hosseini, M. Nejatifar, and A. Kabir, “Comparison of the efficacy and safety of palomo, Ivanissevich and laparoscopic varicocelectomy in Iranian infertile men with palpable varicocele,” International Journal of Fertility & Sterility, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 81–87, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Simforoosh, S. A. M. Ziaee, S. Behjati, F. M. A. Beygi, A. Arianpoor, and H. Abdi, “Laparoscopic management of varicocele using bipolar cautery versus open high ligation technique: a randomized, clinical trial,” Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 743–748, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Zampieri, V. Zuin, M. Corroppolo, C. Chironi, R. M. Cervellione, and F. S. Camoglio, “Varicocele and adolescents: semen quality after 2 different laparoscopic procedures,” Journal of Andrology, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 727–733, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. McCullough, L. Elebyjian, J. Ellen, and C. Mechlin, “A retrospective review of single-institution outcomes with robotic-assisted microsurgical varicocelectomy,” Asian Journal of Andrology, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 189–194, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Teng, Z. Jia, X. Ai et al., “Robotic-assisted laparoscopic artery-sparing varicocelectomy using indocyanine green fluorescence angiography: initial experience,” Andrologia, vol. 52, no. 11, Article ID e13774, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Napolitano, S. D. Pandolfo, A. Aveta et al., “The management of clinical varicocele: robotic surgery approach,” Frontiers in Reproductive Health, vol. 4, Article ID 791330, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Nabi, S. Asterlings, D. R. Greene, and R. L. Marsh, “Percutaneous embolization of varicoceles: outcomes and correlation of semen improvement with pregnancy,” Urology, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 359–363, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Zucchi, L. Mearini, E. Mearini, E. Costantini, V. Bini, and M. Porena, “Treatment of varicocele: randomized prospective study on open surgery versus Tauber antegrade sclerotherapy,” Journal of Andrology, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 328–332, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Galfano, G. Novara, M. Iafrate et al., “Surgical outcomes after modified antegrade scrotal sclerotherapy: a prospective analysis of 700 consecutive patients with idiopathic varicocele,” The Journal of Urology, vol. 179, no. 5, pp. 1933–1937, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Fayez, K. M. El Shantaly, M. Abbas, S. Hauser, S. C. Müller, and A. Fathy, “Comparison of inguinal approach, scrotal sclerotherapy and subinguinal antegrade sclerotherapy in varicocele treatment: a randomized prospective study,” Urologia Internationalis, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 200–203, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Crestani, G. Giannarini, M. Calandriello et al., “Antegrade scrotal sclerotherapy of internal spermatic veins for varicocele treatment: technique, complications, and results,” Asian Journal of Andrology, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 292–295, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Ouanes, M. Rahoui, K. Chaker et al., “Functional outcomes of surgical treatment of varicocele in infertile men: comparison of three techniques,” Annals of Medicine & Surgery, vol. 78, Article ID 103937, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. D. Shlansky-Goldberg, K. N. VanArsdalen, C. M. Rutter et al., “Percutaneous varicocele embolization versus surgical ligation for the treatment of infertility: changes in seminal parameters and pregnancy outcomes,” Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 759–767, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Gandini, D. Konda, C. A. Reale et al., “Male varicocele: transcatheter foam sclerotherapy with sodium tetradecyl sulfate—outcome in 244 patients,” Radiology, vol. 246, no. 2, pp. 612–618, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Wan, H.-M. Cao, B.-C. Yang et al., “An alternative surgical technique for varicoceles: a preliminary experience of the microsurgical spermatic (distal end)-inferior or superficial epigastric vein anastomosis in symptomatic varicoceles associated with perineal pain,” Asian Journal of Andrology, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 624–627, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. N. Schlegel, “Commentary on “An alternative surgical technique for varicoceles: a preliminary experience of the microsurgical spermatic (distal end)-inferior or superficial epigastric vein anastomosis in symptomatic varicoceles associated with perineal pain,” Asian Journal of Andrology, vol. 24, no. 6, Article ID 680, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Testini, S. Miniello, G. Piccinni, B. Di Venere, G. Lissidini, and E. Esposito, “Microsurgical treatment of varicocele in outpatients using the subinguinal approach,” Minerva Chirurgica, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 655–659, 2001.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Jungwirth, C. Gögüs, G. Hauser et al., “Clinical outcome of microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy in infertile men,” Andrologia, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 71–74, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Ghanem, T. Anis, A. El-Nashar, and R. Shamloul, “Subinguinal microvaricocelectomy versus retroperitoneal varicocelectomy: comparative study of complications and surgical outcome,” Urology, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 1005–1009, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Zini, A. Blumenfeld, J. Libman, and J. Willis, “Beneficial effect of microsurgical varicocelectomy on human sperm DNA integrity,” Human Reproduction, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1018–1021, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A.-F. Abdel-Maguid and I. Othman, “Microsurgical and nonmagnified subinguinal varicocelectomy for infertile men: a comparative study,” Fertility and Sterility, vol. 94, no. 7, pp. 2600–2603, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. T. Kim, P. H. Song, and K. H. Moon, “Microsurgical ligation for painful varicocele: effectiveness and predictors of pain resolution,” Yonsei Medical Journal, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 145–150, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Söylemez, N. Penbegül, M. Atar, Y. Bozkurt, A. A. Sancaktutar, and B. Altunoluk, “Comparison of laparoscopic and microscopic subinguinal varicocelectomy in terms of postoperative scrotal pain,” JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 212–217, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Pan, L. Pan, A. Zhang, Y. Liu, F. Zhang, and Y. Dai, “Comparison of two approaches in microsurgical varicocelectomy in Chinese infertile males,” Urologia Internationalis, vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 443–448, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Kumar and N. P. Gupta, “Subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy: evaluation of the results,” Urologia Internationalis, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 368–372, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Al-Said, A. Al-Naimi, A. Al-Ansari et al., “Varicocelectomy for male infertility: a comparative study of open, laparoscopic and microsurgical approaches,” The Journal of Urology, vol. 180, no. 1, pp. 266–270, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Cayan, T. C. Kadioglu, A. Tefekli, A. Kadioglu, and S. Tellaloglu, “Comparison of results and complications of high ligation surgery and microsurgical high inguinal varicocelectomy in the treatment of varicocele,” Urology, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 750–754, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Orhan, R. Onur, A. Semerciöz, F. Firdolas, A. Ardicoglu, and I. T. Köksal, “Comparison of two different microsurgical methods in the treatment of varicocele,” Archives of Andrology, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 213–220, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Shiraishi, S. Oka, H. Ito, and H. Matsuyama, “Comparison of the results and complications of retroperitoneal, microsurgical subinguinal, and high inguinal approaches in the treatment of varicoceles,” Journal of Andrology, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1387–1393, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Shiraishi, S. Oka, and H. Matsuyama, “Surgical comparison of subinguinal and high inguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy for adolescent varicocele,” International Journal of Urology, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 338–342, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Ş. O. Demirdöğen Ş., F. Özkaya, A. E. Cinislioğlu et al., “A comparison between the efficacy and safety of microscopic inguinal and subinguinal varicocelectomy,” Urology Research and Practice, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 254–260, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Ramasamy and P. N. Schlegel, “Microsurgical inguinal varicocelectomy with and without testicular delivery,” Urology, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 1323–1326, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y.-F. Huang, “[Varicocele and male infertility],” Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue = National Journal of Andrology, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 195–200, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Hanchao Liu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies