Open AccessOriginal Article Comparison of Outcome (in Terms of Duration of Surgery, Pain Score and Improvement in Sperm Count) in Subinguinal Varicocelectomy versus Inguinal Varicocelectomy Approach

Aqib Riaz; Ayesha Siddiqa; Ahmad Ali Khan; Rana Shahzad Murtaza; Sajjad Ahmad Ansari; Shaila Riaz

doi:10.51253/pafmj.v76i3.12778

Authors

Aqib Riaz Department of Urology, Combined Military Hospital, Multan/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Ayesha Siddiqa Sheikh Zayed Hospital Raheem Yar Khan, Pakistan
Ahmad Ali Khan Department of Urology, Combined Military Hospital, Multan/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Rana Shahzad Murtaza Department of Urology, Combined Military Hospital, Multan/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Sajjad Ahmad Ansari Department of Surgery, Combined Military Hospital, Multan/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Shaila Riaz T.H.Q Hospital, Kot Adu Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v76i3.12778

Keywords:

Inguinal, Outcome, Subinguinal, Varicocele.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the outcome in subinguinal varicocelectomy versus inguinal varicocelectomy approach.

Study Design: Qausi-experimental study.

Place and Duration of Study: Department of Surgery, Combined Military Hospital, Multan, Pakistan from Jan 2023 to Jan 2024

Methodology: In Group-A patients, subinguinal varicocelectomy was done while in Group-B patients, an inguinal approach was employed. All patients were given intramuscular diclofenac sodium 75 mg 12 hourly. Patients were followed post-operatively by the researcher himself after 4 months of surgery while the final pain score was noted at 24 hours postoperatively.

Results: Of these 66 study cases, grade 1 varicocele was noted in 12.1 % (n=8), grade 2 varicocele were noted in 62.1 % (n= 41) and grade 3 varicocele in 25.8 % (n=17). The left side was involved in 81.8% (n=54) and the right side in 18.2 % (n=12). The mean duration of surgery was 34.95±6.98 minutes, in Group-A the duration was 40.12±5.96 minutes versus 29.79±2.92 minutes in Group-B (p<0.001). The median postoperative pain score in Group-A was 2(2-2) versus 4(4-3) in Group-B (p<0.001). Improvement in sperm count was noted in 57.6 % (n=38), with improvement in Group-A was 72.7 % (n=24) while in Group-B was 42.4 % (n=14) (p=0.013).

Conclusion: Subinguinal varicocelectomy was found superior in terms of postoperative pain relief and improvement in sperm count

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Neves da Silva HV, Meller RL, Ogundipe EA, Rochon PJ. Varicoceles: Overview of Treatment from a Radiologic and Surgical Perspective. Semin Intervent Radiol 2022; 39(5): 490-497.

http://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1757939

2. Persad E, O'Loughlin CA, Kaur S, Wagner G, Matyas N, Hassler-Di Fratta MR, Nussbaumer-Streit B. Surgical or radiological treatment for varicoceles in subfertile men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 4(4): CD000479.

http://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000479.pub6

3. Liu L, Huang W, Luo K, Zeng Y, Shao Y, Long Z et al. Relationship between semen parameters, serum InhB, and INSL-3 levels, and the degree of varicocele. Clinics 2024; 79: 100339.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinsp.2024.100339

4. Aksakalli T, Utlu A, Demirdogen SO, Cinislioglu AE, Karabulut I. Effects of smoking on varicocelectomy outcomes: a retrospective cohort study. Int Urol Nephrol 2024; 56(2): 415-421.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-023-03816-6

5. Mahdi M, Majzoub A, Khalafalla K, To J, Aviles-Sandoval M, Elbardisi H, et al. Effect of redo varicocelectomy on semen parameters and pregnancy outcome: An original report and meta-analysis. Andrologia 2022; 54(10): e14525.

https://doi.org/10.1111/and.14525

6. Dou K, Yang Q, Song T, Zeng X, Yao J, Li Y et al. Microscopic internal spermatic-inferior epigastric vein anastomosis for treating left varicocele. Int Urol Nephrol 2024; 56(10): 3269-3276.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-024-04090-w

7. Kale S, Rashid T. Feasibility of loupe assisted subinguinal varicocelectomy in treatment of male infertility. Actas Urol Esp 2022; 46(9): 515-520.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuroe.2022.02.005

8. Okeke CJ, Ojewola RW, Jeje EA, Tijani KH, Ogunjimi MA. A comparison of loupe-assisted and non-loupe-assisted subinguinal varicocelectomy. Niger Postgrad Med J 2023; 30(3): 218-225. https://doi.org/10.4103/npmj.npmj_39_23

9. Öztekin Ü, Caniklioglu M, Sarı S, Selmi V, Gürel A, Taspınar MS, et al. Evaluation of the influence of subinguinal varicocelectomy procedure on seminal parameters, reproductive hormones and testosterone/estradiol ratio. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2020; 92(2): 158.

https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.2.158

10. Adams Y, Amidu N, Afoko AA. Changes in testicular arterial hemodynamic, gonadotropin levels, and semen parameters among varicocele patients randomized to varicocelectomy or observed in Tamale, Ghana. Urologia 2023; 90(2): 286-294.

https://doi.org/10.1177/03915603221127116

11. Mehrabi S, Manzouri L, Mehrabi A. Comparison of Success Rate and Complications of Open Inguinal and Subinguinal Varicocelectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Res Square 2021; 20121. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-597318/v1

12. Sharma S, Shimpi RK. Estimation of haemodynamic changes in varicocele testis and results after microsurgical sub-inguinal varicocelectomy. Urologia 2023; 90(1): 164-169.

https://doi.org/10.1177/03915603211069013

13. Syarief AN, Rahman IA, Setiawan MR, Rizaldi F. The Influence of Number of Ligated Veins in Varicocele Patients Undergoing Microsurgical Varicocelectomy in Postoperative Pain and Sperm Parameters Outcome. Med Arch 2023; 77(4): 299-305.

https://doi.org/10.5455/medarh.2023.77.299-305

14. Franco A, Proietti F, Palombi V, Savarese G, Guidotti M, Leonardo C, et al. Varicocele: To Treat or Not to Treat? J Clin Med 2023; 12(12): 4062. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12124062

15. Huang WC, Huang CP, Lai CM, Ku FY, Hsu HN, Yang CT, et al. Increased intraoperative vein ligation in microsurgical varicocelectomy is associated with pain improvement. Medicine 2023; 102(38): e35170.

https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000035170

16. Hameed-Ur-Rahman AH, Sabahat F, Fozia U, Nisar A, Muhammad AS. Surgical outcomes of inguinal and suprainguinal varicocelectomy. Pak J Med Health Sci 2020; 14: 140-141.

17. Gontero P, Pretti G, Fontana F, Zitella A, Marchioro G, Frea B et al. Inguinal versus subinguinal varicocele vein ligation using magnifying loupe under local anesthesia: which technique is preferable in clinical practice? Urology 2005; 66(5): 1075-1079.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.05.009

18. Demirdöğen ŞO, Özkaya F, Cinislioğlu AE, Altay MS, Adanur Ş, Polat Ö, et al. A comparison between the efficacy and safety of microscopic inguinal and subinguinal varicocelectomy . Turk J Urol 2019; 45(4): 254-260. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2019.72547

19. Shahzad S, SHahid MW, Mughal MA, Ullah I, Khan A. Comparison of Open Sub-Inguinal and Microscopic Sub-Inguinal Varicocelectomy for Improvement of Sperm Parameters. Pak J Med Heatlh Sci 2021; 15(10): 2882-2885.

http://doi.org/10.53350/pjmhs2115102882

20. Kotb S, Abdel-Rassoul MA, Elkousy MM, El-Shorbagy G, Elsayed AS, Abdel-Rahman S, et al. Comparison of the pulling technique versus the standard technique in microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Afr J Urol 2023; 29(1): 69.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12301-023-00393-z