4.1 Article

Comparison of Laparoscopic and Microscopic Subinguinal Varicocelectomy in terms of Postoperative Scrotal Pain

Journal

Publisher

SOC LAPAROENDOSCOPIC SURGEONS
DOI: 10.4293/108680812X13427982376220

Keywords

Laparoscopy; Microscopy; Postoperative pain; Varicocele

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Objectives: In this study, 2 different varicocelectomy methods were compared with regard to postoperative scrotal pain, length of operation, and complications. Methods: Forty varicocele patients, who visited our clinic because of infertility or scrotal pain between 2008 and 2009, were enrolled in this clinical study. Microscopic subinguinal varicocelectomy was performed on 20 patients in Group I, and laparoscopic varicocelectomy was performed on 20 patients in Group II. Following surgery, the patients were assessed for postoperative requirements for analgesia; return to normal activity; varicocele recurrence; hydrocele formation; scrotal pain at postoperative days 1, 3, and 7; and other complications. Results: Mean age was 24.2 +/- 3.4 years in Group I and 25.1 +/- 12.1 years in Group II. Mean pain scores at postoperative 1, 3, and 7 days in Group I were (5.20 +/- 11.14, 4.60 +/- 10.97, and 3.50 +/- 0.97, respectively) significantly higher than those of Group 11 (0.70 +/- 0.82, 0.60 +/- 10.84, and 0.10 +/- 10.32, respectively). Time to return to normal activity was significantly shorter in Group 11 (3.7 +/- 2.1 days) compared with Group I (6.8 +/- 13.4 days) (p = 0.028). However, the number of recurrences and hydroceles, as a complication of varicocelectomy, was 2 times higher in Group II (10%) than in Group I (5%). Conclusions: We believe that laparoscopic varicocelectomy is a safe, effective, and minimally invasive procedure. Furthermore, reduced postoperative discomfort and earlier return to normal activity are additional advantages of this method.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available