Loupe-assisted versus microscopic varicocelectomy: Is there an intraoperative anatomic difference?

The aim of this study was to compare the intraoperative difference in anatomic details between loupe-assisted and microscopic varicocelectomy within the same spermatic cord. Between April 2011 and August 2011, 26 men with 33 sides containing grade 2-3 varicocele were enrolled in this study. First, one surgeon performed the open inguinal varicocelectomy under × 3.5 loupe magnification. The presumed vascular channels and lymphatics were isolated and marked without ligation. Another surgeon then microsurgically dissected and checked the same spermatic cord using an operating microscope to judge the results in terms of the ligation of the internal spermatic veins and the preservation of the arteries and lymphatics. There were significant differences in the average number of internal spermatic arteries (1.51 vs 0.97), internal spermatic veins (5.70 vs 4.39) and lymphatics (3.52 vs 1.61) between the microscope and loupe-assisted procedures (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively). Meanwhile, in varicocele repair with loupe magnification, an average of 1.30 ± 1.07 (43/33) internal spermatic veins per side were missed, among the overlooked veins, 1.12 ± 0.93 (37/33) were adhered to the preserved testicular artery, as well as 0.55 ± 0.79 lymphatics and 0.36 ± 0.55 arteries that were to be ligated. In conclusion, microscopic varicocelectomy could preserve more internal spermatic arteries and lymphatics and could ligate more veins than the loupe-assisted procedure. To some degree, loupe magnification is inadequate for the reliable identification and dissection of the tiny vessels of the spermatic cord, as most of the overlooked veins were adhered to the preserved testicular artery.

[1]  Xin Gao,et al.  Macroscopic and microsurgical varicocelectomy: what’s the intraoperative difference? , 2013, World Journal of Urology.

[2]  J. Sandlow,et al.  Varicocelectomy in the treatment of testicular pain: a review , 2012, Current opinion in urology.

[3]  M. Lai,et al.  Microanatomy of the spermatic cords during microsurgical inguinal varicocelectomy: initial experience in Asian men. , 2012, Asian journal of andrology.

[4]  Aleksander Giwercman,et al.  European Association of Urology guidelines on Male Infertility: the 2012 update. , 2012, European urology.

[5]  P. Mirilas,et al.  Microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy in children, adolescents, and adults: surgical anatomy and anatomically justified technique. , 2012, Journal of andrology.

[6]  R. Shabsigh,et al.  Review of current varicocelectomy techniques and their outcomes , 2011, BJU international.

[7]  C. Belnap,et al.  Incidence and clinical significance of arterial injury in varicocele repair , 2011, BJU international.

[8]  M. Srougi,et al.  The systematic use of intraoperative vascular Doppler ultrasound during microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy improves precise identification and preservation of testicular blood supply. , 2009, Fertility and sterility.

[9]  Yi Yao,et al.  The effects of artery-ligating and artery-preserving varicocelectomy on the ipsilateral testes in rats. , 2008, Urology.

[10]  A. Kadıoğlu,et al.  Treatment of palpable varicocele in infertile men: a meta-analysis to define the best technique. , 2008, Journal of andrology.

[11]  F. Camoglio,et al.  Varicocele and adolescents: semen quality after 2 different laparoscopic procedures. , 2007, Journal of andrology.

[12]  G. Bartsch,et al.  Laparoscopic varicocele ligation in children and adolescents using isosulphan blue: a prospective randomized trial , 2006, BJU international.

[13]  A. Zitella,et al.  Inguinal versus subinguinal varicocele vein ligation using magnifying loupe under local anesthesia: which technique is preferable in clinical practice? , 2005, Urology.

[14]  D. Acar,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. , 2005, The Journal of urology.

[15]  M. Goldstein,et al.  Incidence and postoperative outcomes of accidental ligation of the testicular artery during microsurgical varicocelectomy. , 2005, The Journal of urology.

[16]  M. Goldstein,et al.  Intraoperative varicocele anatomy: a microscopic study of the inguinal versus subinguinal approach. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[17]  R. Amelar Early and late complications of inguinal varicocelectomy. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[18]  M. Hill,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. , 2003, European urology.

[19]  G. Bartsch,et al.  Optimizing the operative treatment of boys with varicocele: sequential comparison of 4 techniques. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[20]  O. Adorisio,et al.  Subinguinal Microsurgical Ligation , 2003, Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology.

[21]  M. Goldstein,et al.  Microsurgical inguinal varicocelectomy with delivery of the testis: an artery and lymphatic sparing technique. , 1992, The Journal of urology.

[22]  M. Goldstein,et al.  Intraoperative varicocele anatomy: a macroscopic and microscopic study. , 1992, The Journal of urology.

[23]  J. Jarow,et al.  Testicular artery ramification within the inguinal canal. , 1992, The Journal of urology.

[24]  R. R. Murray,et al.  Comparison of recurrent varicocele anatomy following surgery and percutaneous balloon occlusion. , 1986, The Journal of urology.

[25]  J. Marmar,et al.  The management of varicoceles by microdissection of the spermatic cord at the external inguinal ring. , 1985, Fertility and sterility.

[26]  R. Kessler,et al.  Hydrocele following internal spermatic vein ligation: a retrospective study and review of the literature. , 1984, The Journal of urology.