113 / 330
113
19–22 APRIL, 2017, BARCELONA, SPAIN
(66%) with Palomo procedure, and 3 of the 4 patients (75%) with selective artery sparing proce-
dure had catched up the testicular growth. Laparoscopic non-selective procedure was used for
the recurrent varicocele and totally regression was observed. Mean follow up duration of patients’
was10.5±3.8 months.
CONCLUSIONS
Laparoscopic non-selective arterio-venous ligation and laparoscopic selective artery sparing pro-
cedures for surgical treatment of adolescent varicocele were both effective and safe methods with
similar success and lower complications and recurrence rates.
S10-6 (P without presentation)
COMPARISON THE OUTCOMES OF LAPAROSCOPIC
VARICOCELE LIGATION AND MICROSCOPIC
VARICOCELECTOMY IN PREADOLESCENT
AND ADOLESCENT BOYS
Ahsen KARAGOZLU AKGUL, Murat UCAR, Nizamettin KILIC, Emin BALKAN
and Hasan DOGRUYOL
Uludag University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Pediatric Surgery, Division of Pediatric Urology, Bursa, TURKEY
PURPOSE
Surgical treatment of varicocele is controversial in prepubertal boys: Open approach (microscopy
assisted or not), laparoscopic. The aim of the study is to compare the outcomes of microscopic and
laparoscopic varicocelectomy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We compared two groups of prepubertal and pubertal patients who underwent surgical treatment
for varicocele in our clinic between 2003 and 2015, retrospectively. Group 1 included boys who
underwent laparoscopic unilateral varicocele ligation (LVL) and group 2 included patients who un-
derwent unilateral microscopic varicocelectomy (MV). We compared the operative time, outcomes
and complications between groups. Fisher’s exact test, Mann-Whitney U test and independent
samples t test were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS
We identified a total of 43 patient (mean age was 13.2 years), 30 in group 1 and 13 patients in
group 2. Varicocele were detected on the left side in 40 patients and right in 3 cases. There was no
difference between groups in terms of age, side and grade of varicocele at presentation. Median
operative time in group 1 and 2 were 55 min (35-70 min) and 50 min (40-80 min), respectively.
Scrotal hematoma was seen in one cases in MV group, and hydrocele were detected in 3 cases in
LVL group. Postoperative impairment in testicular volume were detected in four cases, 3 in group
1 and 1 in group 2. There was no postoperative wound infection or recurrence in both groups. There
was no statistically significant difference between groups in terms of outcomes and complications.
CONCLUSIONS
Although there were longer operative time, higher hydrocele ratio and more cases with postop-
eratively decreased testicular volume in LVL group, there was no statistically significant difference
between groups. The findings of our study demonstrated that both procedures were effective op-
tions in correction of preadolescent and adolescent varicocele.