Laparoscopic and microsurgical varicocelectomy: comparison of the results


Дәйексөз келтіру

Толық мәтін

Аннотация

Laparoscopic and microsurgical varicocelectomy were compared by clinical and cost efficacy results. Microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy was performed in 129 patients, laparoscopic - 167 patients. Median of the patients' age was 27 years (16-38 years). Median of follow-up in microsurgical operation was 26 months (13-60 months), in laparoscopic method - 62 months (28-71 months). By clinical criteria (time of surgical intervention, amount of analgetic drugs in the postoperative period, stay in hospital, rate of varicocele recurrence and postoperative complications), the results of microsurgical varicocelectomy proved significantly better than those of laparoscopic operations. The rate of all complications after microsurgical ligation of the testicular veins was 8 times less than after laparoscopic intervention, the rate of varicocele recurrence - 2.4 times less. Microsurgical operations were financially more effective (by 20%) than laparoscopic varicocelectomy. Thus, microsurgical varicocelectomy is more effective than laparoscopic one both clinically and financially.

Авторлар туралы

Sh Muslimov

A Bogdanov

Sh Muslimov

A Bogdanov

Әдебиет тізімі

  1. Jequier A. M. Male infertility: a guide for the clinician. Oxford: Black-well Science Ltd; 2000.
  2. Lenzi A., Gandini L., Bagolan P. et al. Sperm parameters after early left varicocele treatment. Fertil. and Steril. 1998; 69 (2): 347-349.
  3. Першуков А. И. Варикоцеле и некоторые вопросы мужского бесплодия. Киев: Спутник-1; 2002.
  4. Al-Kandari A. M., Shabaan H., Ibrahim H. M. et al. Comparison of outcomes of different varicocelectomy techniques: open inguinal, laparoscopic, and subinguinal microscopic varicocelectomy: a randomized clinical trial. Urology 2007; 69 (3): 417- 420.
  5. Al-Said S., Al-Naimi A., Al-Ansari A. et al. Varicocelectomy for male infertility: a comparative study of open, laparoscopic and microsurgical approaches. J. Urol. (Baltimore) 2008; 180 (1): 266-270.
  6. Chen X. F., Zhou L. X., Liu Y. D. et al. Comparative analysis of three different surgical approaches to varicocelectomy. Zhonghua Nan KeXue 2009; 15 (5): 413-416.
  7. McManus M. C., Barqawi A., Meacham R. B. et al. Laparoscopic varicocele ligation: are there advantages compared with the microscopic subinguinal approach? Urology 2004; 64 (2): 357- 360.
  8. http://www.uroweb.org/gls
  9. World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and sperm-cervical mucus interaction. 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.
  10. World Health Organization. WHO manual for the standardized investigation and diagnosis of the infertile couple. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993 (Reprinted 1997).
  11. http://www.sf.ru
  12. Watanabe M., Nagai A., Kusumi N. et al. Minimal invasiveness and effectivity of subinguinal microscopic varicoce-lectomy: a comparative study with retroperitoneal high and laparoscopic approaches. Int. J. Urol. 2005; 12 (10): 892-898.
  13. Ogura K., Matsuda T., Terachi T. et al. Laparoscopic varicocelectomy: invasiveness and effectiveness compared with conventional open retroperitoneal high ligation. Int. J. Urol. 1994; 1 (1): 62-66.
  14. Kwon E. D., Sandlow J. I., Donovan J. F. Varix ligation. In: Smith A. D., Badlani G. H., Bagley D. H., eds. Smith's textbook of endourology. 1-st ed. St. Louis: Quality Medical Publishing; 1996. 894-903.
  15. Zini A., Fischer A., Bellack D. et al. Technical modification of microsurgical varicocelectomy can reduce operating time. Urology 2006; 67 (4): 803-806.
  16. Peterson A. C., Lance R. S., Ruiz H. E. Outcomes of varicocele ligation done for pain. J. Urol. (Baltimore) 1998; 159 (5): 1565-1567.
  17. Yaman O., Ozdiler E., Anafarta K., Gögüs O. Effect of microsurgical subinguinalvaricocele ligation to treat pain. Urology 2000; 55 (1): 107-108.
  18. Altunoluk B., Soylemez H., Efe E., Malkoc O. Duration of preoperative scrotal pain may predict the success of microsurgical varicocelectomy. Int. Braz. J. Urol. 2010; 36 (1): 55-59.
  19. Кадыров З. А. Варикоцеле. Душанбе; 2006.
  20. Testini M., Miniello S., Piccinni G. et al. Microsurgical treatment of varicocele in outpatients using the subinguinal approach. Minerva Chir. 2001; 56 (6): 655-659.
  21. Silveri M., Adorisio O., Pane A. et al. Subinguinal microsurgical ligation - its effectiveness in pediatric and adolescent varicocele. Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. 2003; 37 (1): 53-54.
  22. Schiff J., Kelly C., Goldstein M. et al. Managing varicoceles in children: results with microsurgical varicocelectomy. Br. J. Urol. Int. 2005; 95 (3): 399-402.
  23. Cordovana A., Scafella A., Gaeta F. et al. Surgical treatment of varicocele with inguinal microligation technique. 6-year experience. Minerva Chir. 2000; 55 (11): 751-757.
  24. Shamsa A., Mohammadi L., Abolbashari M. et al. Comparison of open and laparoscopic varicocelectomies in terms of operative time, sperm parameters, and complications. Urol. J. 2009; 6 (3): 170-175.

Қосымша файлдар

Қосымша файлдар
Әрекет
1. JATS XML
Жүктеу

© Bionika Media, 2011

Осы сайт cookie-файлдарды пайдаланады

Біздің сайтты пайдалануды жалғастыра отырып, сіз сайттың дұрыс жұмыс істеуін қамтамасыз ететін cookie файлдарын өңдеуге келісім бересіз.< / br>< / br>cookie файлдары туралы< / a>