Varicocele treatment: A 2-centers comparison between non microsurgical open correction, laparoscopic approach and retrograde percutaneous sclerotization on 463 cases


Submitted: September 26, 2013
Accepted: September 26, 2013
Published: September 26, 2013
Abstract Views: 2355
PDF: 1586
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

  • Giangiacomo Ollandini Urologic Unit, Cattinara Hospital, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
  • Giovanni Liguori Urologic Unit, Cattinara Hospital, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
  • Stanislav Ziaran Urology clinic, University hospital in Bratislava, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia.
  • Tomáš Málek Urology clinic, University hospital in Bratislava, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia.
  • Giorgio Mazzon Urologic Unit, Cattinara Hospital, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
  • Bernardino de Concilio Urologic Unit, Cattinara Hospital, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
  • Stefano Bucci Urologic Unit, Cattinara Hospital, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
  • Sara Benvenuto Urologic Unit, Cattinara Hospital, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
  • Emanuele Belgrano Urologic Unit, Cattinara Hospital, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
  • Carlo Trombetta Urologic Unit, Cattinara Hospital, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Objectives: To determine whether there are differences in sperm parameters improvement after different varicocele correction techniques. To determine the role of age in sperm parameters improvement. Methods: 2 different European centers collected pre- and postoperative sperm parameters of patients undergoing varicocele correction. Among 463 evaluated patients, 367 were included. Patients were divided in procedure-related and age-related groups. Ivanissevich inguinal open surgical procedure (OS), lymphatic-sparing laparoscopic approach (LSL) and retrograde percutaneous transfemoral sclerotization (RPS) were performed. As outcome measurements sperm count (millions/mL, SC) and percentage of mobile sperms were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate regression between the defined groups; bivariate regression analysis between age and sperm count and motility. Results: Number of patients: OS 78; LSL 85; RPS 204. Mean age 30.2 (SD 6.83); postoperative SC increased from 18.2 to 30.1 (CI 95% 27.3-32.9; p < 0,001); motility from 25.6 to 32.56% (30.9-34.2; p < 0.001). OS: SC varied from 16.9 to 18.2 (p < 0.001); sperm motility from 29% to 33% (p < 0.001). LSL: SC from 15.5 to 17.2 (p < 0.001); motility from 27 to 31% (p < 0.001). RPS: SC from 18.9 to 36.2 (p < 0.001); motility from 24% to 32% (p < 0.001). Univariate and multivariate analysis confirmed the significant difference of SC variation in RPS, compared to the other groups (p < 0.001). No significance between LSL and OS (p = 0.826). No significant differences regarding motility (p = 0.8). Conclusions: Varicocele correction is confirmed useful in improving sperm parameters; sclerotization technique leads to a better sperm improvement compared to other studied procedures; improvement in seminal parameters is not affected by age of the patients treated.

Ollandini, G., Liguori, G., Ziaran, S., Málek, T., Mazzon, G., de Concilio, B., Bucci, S., Benvenuto, S., Belgrano, E., & Trombetta, C. (2013). Varicocele treatment: A 2-centers comparison between non microsurgical open correction, laparoscopic approach and retrograde percutaneous sclerotization on 463 cases. Archivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia, 85(3), 143–148. https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2013.3.143

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations