Subinguinal mikrocerrahi varikoselektomi tecrübelerimiz: Klinik çalışma

Bu çalışmada etyolojik ayrım yapılmaksızın iki ayrı klinikte uyguladığımız mikrocerrahi varikoselektomi tecrübelerimiz sunulmuştur. Çalışmaya varikosel tanısı konmuş 60 hastaya 66 mikrocerrahi subinguinal varikoselektomi uygulandı. Öykü, fizik muayene, yaş, fertilite durumu, sperm parametreleri, tele/iki taraflı olma durumu, skrotal ağrı ve/veya rahatsızlık hissi, grade, doppler çapı, reflü varlığı, bağlanan ven sayısı, operasyon süresi, postoperatif hidrosel, orşit, yara enfeksiyonu, nüks ve hospitalizasyon süresi değerlendirildi. Operasyon mikroskobu (xlO) kullanılarak testiküler arter, vazal arter, internal spermatik lenfatikler ve vaz deferens korunarak her hasraya subinguinal mikrocerrahi varikoselektomi uygulandı. Ortalama hasta yaşı 25.9 idi. 7 (%11.6) hasta infertilite, 53 (%88.4) hasta skrotal ağrı ve/veya rahatsızlık hissi nedeniyle öpere edildi. 53 hastada sol, 1 hastada sağ, 6 hastada bilateral grade 2 veya 3 klinik varikosel saptandı. Ortalama bağlanan v&n sayısı 6.9 (3-15) idi. Ortalama operasyon süresi 44 (30-110) dakika idi. 44 hastaya rejyonel, 16 hastaya lokal anestezi uygulandı. 1 (%1.6) hastada postoperatif 1.haftada orşit, 1 (%1.6) hastada yara enfeksiyonu gözlendi. Skrotal hematom hiçbir hastada saptanmadı. 6.ayda hiçbir hastada testiküler atrofi, nüks veya ağrı gözlenmedi. Mikrocerrahi subinguinal varikoselektomi, operatif mikroskobun olduğu her ameliyathanede güvenle uygulanabilecek komplikasyon oranı düşük, etkin, morbiditesi az bir cerrahi yöntemdir.

Experiences in microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy: Clinical trial

In this study, we presented the experiences of microsurgical varicocelectomy, caused by various etiologic pathologies in two different urology clinics. 66 subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy was performed to 60 patients. History, physical examination, age, fertility pattern, sperm parameters, laterality, scrotal pain and/or discomfort, grade of varicocele, veins doppler diameter, reflux, ligated vein number, duration of surgery, postoperative hydrocele, orchitis, infection, reccurence and hospitalization period were evaluated. Operative microscope (XlO) was used to protect the testicular artery, vasal aretery, internal spermatic lymphatics and vas deferens. The mean age was 25.9. 7 (11.6%) patients of infertility and 53 (88.4%) of scrotal pain and/or discomfort were operated. In 53 patients, left, 1 patient ,right and 6 , bilateral grade 2 or 3 clinical varicocele were detected. The mean number of ligated vein was 6.9 (3-15). The operation time was 44 (30-110) minutes. In 44, regional, 16 patients, local anesthesia were applied. In 1 (1.6%) patient, wound infection at first week after the operation, in 1 (1.6%) orchitis were observed. Scrotal hematoma was not detected at the early period. At the 6. months of follow-up, testicular atrophy, hydrocele, reccurence and pain were not established. Microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy that could be performed confidentaly in each operating room in which the operative microscope is available, provides low complication rate and more efficient outcome with less co-morbidity.

Kaynakça

1.Saypol DC: Varicocele. JAndrol, 2: 61-71, 1981.

2.Dubin L, Amelar RD: Etiologic factors in 1294 consecutive cases of male infertility. Fertil Steril, 22:469-474,1971.

3.Greenberg SH: Varicocele and male fertility. Fertil Steril, 28: 699-706,1977.

4.Greenberg SH, Lipshultz LI, Wein AJ: Experience with 425 sub fertile male patients. J Urol, 119: 507-510,1978.

5.Goldstein M, Gilbert BR, Dicker AP, et al: Microsurgical inguinal varicocelectomy with delivery of the testis: an artery and lymphatic sparing technique. JUrol, 148: 1808-1811, 1992.

6.Marmar JL, and Kim Y: Subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy: a technical critique and statistical analysis of semen and pregnancy data. J Urol, 152: 1127- 1132, 1994.

7.Cayan S, Kadıoglu TC, Tefekli A, et alComparison of results and complications of high ligation surgery and microsurgical high inguinal varicocelectomy in the treatment of varicocele. Urology, 55: 750-754, 2000.

8.Pintus C, Rodriguez Matas MJ, Mianzoni C, et.al: Varicocele in pediatric patients: comparative assesment of different therapeutic approaches. Urology, 57: 154-157,2001.

9.Kass EJ, Marcol B: Results of varicocele surgery in adolescents: a comparison of techniques. J Urol, 148: 694-696, 1992

10.Fette A, Mayr J: Treatment of varcoceles in childhood and adolescence with Tauber's antegrade scrotal sclerothrapy. J Pediatr Surg, 35: 1222-1225, 2000.

11.Gorenstein A, Katz S, Schiller MI: Varicocele in children: 'to treat or not to treat'-venographic and mariometric studies. J Pediatr Surg, 21: 1046-1050, 1986.

12.Esposito C, Monguzzi GL, Gonzalez-Sabin MA, et al: Laparascopic treatment of the pediatric varcocele: a multicenter study of the Italian Society of video surgery in infancy. J Urol, 163: 1944-1946, 2000.

13.Grober ED, Chan PTK, Zini A, et.al: Microsurgical treatment of persistent or recurrent varicocele. Fertil and Steril, 82:718-722, 2004.

14.Schiff J, Kelly C, Goldstein M, et al: Managing varicoceles in children: results with microsurgical varicocelectomy. BJUInt, 95: 399-402, 2005.

15.Report on Varicocele and infertility. An AUA Best Practice Policy and ASRM Practice Commitee Report. 1-5,2001.

16.Yaman O, Ozdiler E, Anafarta K, et al: Effect of microsurgical subinguinal varicocele ligation to treat pain. Urology, 55: 107-108, 2000.

17.Chawla A, Kulkarni G, Kamal K, et.al: Microsurgical varicocelectomy for recurrent or persistent varicoceles associated with orchalgia. Urology, 66: 1072-1074, 2005.

18.Pryor JL, Howards SS: Varicocele. Urol Clin North Am. 14:499-513, 1987.

19.Silveri M, Adorisio O, Pane A, et.al: Subinguinal microsurgical ligation. Scand J Urol and Nephrol, 37:53-54,2003.

20.Nuhoğlu B, Göçen A, Ersoy E, et.al: Subinguinal mikrocerrahi ve inguinal varikoselektominin semen ve hormon parametrelerine etkilerinin karşılaştırılması: 1 yıllık izlem. Türk Üroloji Dergisi, 30: 302-307,2004.

Kaynak Göster