Talat YURDAKUL, Gürcan KISAKOL, Mehmet KILINÇ, Gürhan GÖKÇE

İnfertil erkeklerde yüksek inguinal ve mikro cerrahi ile subinguinal varikoselektominin karşılaştırılması

Bu,çalışmada; infertilite tedavisinde yüksek inguinal varikoselektomi, yöntemi ile, subinguinal mikrocerrahiyle varikoselektomi, komplikasyonları, semen parametreleri ve hormon profillerine etkileri açısından karşılaştırılmıştır. Yüksek inguinal yöntemle (Grup 1) 50 olguda 70, subinguinal mikrocerrahiyle (Grup 2) 50 olguda 77 varikoselektomi yapıldı. Grup 1 'de olguların sekizinde (% 7 6,6) nüks oluştu ve 5 olguda hidrosel gelişimi (% 10,4). saptandı; grup 2'de 2 olguda (%4) nüks saptandı. Grup 2'de hiçbir olguda hidrosel gelişimi gözlenmedi (P

Comparison of the results of high inguinal and subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy in the treatment of infertility

Comparison of The Results of High inguinal And Subinguinal Microsurgical Varicocelectomy in The Treatment of Infertility in this study results of two different Varicocelectomy method were compared regarding complications and the effects on semen parameters and hormon profiles in treatment of infertility. Seventy high inguinal ligation of testicular vein in 50 patients (group 1) and 77 subinguinal microsurgical method in 50 patients (group 2) were performed. in groupl; eight recurrent varicocele (16,6%), five hydrocele (%10,4) formation were detected in group 1, only two (4%) recurrence were found in group 2 (P

PDF

___

1. Witt MA, Lipshultz LI. Varicocele: a progressive or static lesion? Urology 1993; 59:613-616.
2. Armand Zini, Sarah K,Girardi and Marc Goldstein. Varicocele in Ed Wayne J.G Hellstram: male inferti- lity and sexual dysfunction. 1997:201-218.
3. Madgar I ,Weeissenberg R, Lunenfeld B. ve ark. Controlled trial of high spermatik vein ligation for varikosele in infertile men. Fertil Steril Î995; 63:120-124.
4. Goldestein M, Gilbert BR,Dicker AP. ve ark. Micr- surgical inguinal varicocelectomy with delivery of the testis: An artery and lymphatic sparing techni- que. J Urol 1992; 148: 1808- 1811.
5. Goluboff ET, Chang DT, Kirsh AJ. ve ark : Incidence of external spermatic veins in patients undergoing inguinal varicocelectomy. Urology 1994, 44: 1190- 1194.
6. Beck EM, Schlegel PN. ve Goldstein M. Intraopera- tive varicocele anatomy: a macroscopic and micros- kopic study, j Urol 1992; 148: 1190-1194.
7. Kaufman SL, Kadir S, Barth KH ve ark. Mechanisms of recurrent varicocele after baloon occlusion or surgical ligation of the internal spermatic vein. Radi- ology 1983; 147:435-440.
8. Jerzy Niedzıelskı ve Darius A. Paduch. Recurrence of varicocele after high retroperitoneal repair: Impli- cation of intraoperative venography. J Urology 2001 ; 165: 937-940.
9. Atassi O., Kass E.J. ve Steinert B.W. Testicular growth after succesful varicocele correction in ado- lescents: comparision of artery sparing techniques with the Palomo procedure. J Urol 7995:153: 482.
10.Cayan S, Kadioğlu TC, Tefekli A. ve ark. Compari¬son of results and complications of high ligation sur¬gery and microsurgical high inguinal varicocelectomy in the treatment of varicocele. Urology 2000 May, 55: 750-754.
11. World Health Organization (WHO). The influence of varicocele on parameters of fertility clinics. Fertil Steril 1992; 57:1289-1292.
12. Villanueva-Diaz C.A., Vega-Hernandez E.A, Diaz- Perez MAve ark. Sperm dysfunction in subfertile patients with varicocele and marginal semen analy- sis. Andrologia 1999; 31: 263-267.
13. Parikh F.R, Kamat S.A, Kodwaney G.G. ve Balaiah D. Computer-assisted semen analysis parameters in men with varicocele: Is surgery helpful? Fertil Steril 1996 ; 66: 440-445.
14. Mohammed T, Ismail M.D., John Sedor, M.S. ve ark. Are sperm motion parametres influenced by varico- cele ligation? Fertil Steril 1999; 71, 5 :886-890.
15. Ismail M.T, Sedor J. ve Hirsch I.H. Are sperm moti- on parameters influenced by varikocele ligation? Fertil Steril 1999; 71: 886-890.
16. Allen D. Seftel, Scoot D. Rutchık, Hegang Chen ve ark. Effects of subınguınal varicocele ligation on sperm concentration, motility and Kruger morpho- logy. J Urol1997; 158: 1800-1803.
17. Lund L. ve Larsen S.B. 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.
18.Schlesinger M.H., Wilites I.F. ve Nagler, H.M. Treatment outcome after varicocelectomy. Urol. Clin. North Am 1994; 21, 517-529.
19. Report on Varicocele and infertility. An AUA Best Practice Policy and ASRM Practise Commitee Re- port. 2001,1-5.
20. Sirvent JJ, Bernat R, Navarno MA ve ark. Leydig cell in idiopathic varicoceles. Fur Urol 1990; 17: 257- 261.
21. Bickel A, Dickstein G. Factors predicting the outco- me of varicocele repair for sub fertility: the value of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone test. J Urol 1989; 142: 1230-1233.
22. Fujisawa M, Hayashi A, Imanishi O. ve ark. The sig- nificance of gonadotropin- relasing hormone test for predicting fertility after varicocelectomy. Fertil Steril 1994; 61: 779-782.
23. Hudson RW, Perez-Marrero RA, Crawford VA. ve ark. Hormonal parameters of men with varicoceles before and after varicocelectomy . Fertil Steril 1985; 43:905-910.
24. Segenreich E, Shmuely H, Singer R. ve ark. Androlo- gical parameters in patient with varicocele and fer- tility disorders treated by high ligation the left sper- matic vein. IntJ Fertil 1986; 31: 200-203.
25. Cayan S, Kadioğlu A, Orhan I. ve ark. The effect of microsurgical varicocelectomy on serum folicle sti- mulating hormone, testosterone and free testostero- ne levels in infertile men with varicocele BJU Int 1999; 84(9): 1046-1049