Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer

Efficacy and safety of microsurgical varicocelectomy with subinguinal and inguinal approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Muhammad Wahyu Ali ,
  • Agung Ravi Saputra Sangadji ,
  • Yufi Aulia Azmi ,
  • Fikri Rizaldi ,
  • Doddy Moesbadianto Soebadi ,


Abstract

Link of Video Abstract: https://youtu.be/AfvCd6OEtcY

 

Introduction: Microsurgical varicocelectomy is the gold standard for varicocele therapy because it has a higher success rate and minimal complication rate than other surgical modalities. This review aims to directly compare the efficacy and safety of inguinal and subinguinal varicocelectomy microsurgery.

Method: This study conducted based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Articles examining the comparison of inguinal micro-varicolectomy compared to subinguinal in patients with varicoceles undergoing varicocele surgical procedures were systematically reviewed from the PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus databases. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) studies’ quality was determined using the RoB Tool v2: for randomized trials. Risk Ratio with a 95% confidence interval is applied to the measurement of research outcomes. The analysis is performed with RevMan 5.4 software. This research protocol is listed in the PROSPERO register.

Result: A total of 293 study subjects were included from three articles in the study. Inguinal micro-varicocelectomy has a faster operating time outcome than the subinguinal approach (MD: -3.81 95% CI -6.41-1.21; p = 0.004) but has a higher postoperative visual analog pain scale (VAS) outcome (MD: -0.44 95% CI 0.85-0.03; p = 0.03).

Conclusion: There were no significant differences in the outcome of hydrocele incidence, the degree of recurrence, or the number of veins that were ligated after surgery. Micro-varicocelectomy with the inguinal approach has the advantage of faster operating time than the subingunal approach but has a higher pain rate than the subinguinal approach. We suggest the sub-inguinal rather than inguinal approach because of the higher number of benefits.

Keywords: varicocele varicocelectomy microscopic micro-varicocelectomy inguinal subinguinal outcome

References

  1. Baazeem A, Belzile E, Ciampi A, et al. Varicocele and Male Factor Infertility Treatment: A New Meta-analysis and Review of the Role of Varicocele Repair. Eur Urol. 2011;60(4):796-808. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.06.018
  2. Lomboy JR, Coward RM. The Varicocele: Clinical Presentation, Evaluation, and Surgical Management. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2016;33(3):163-169. doi:10.1055/s-0036-1586143
  3. Sharlip ID, Jarow JP, Belker AM, et al. Best practice policies for male infertility. American Society for Reproductive Medicine. 2002;77(5):873-882. doi:S0015-0282(02)03105-9
  4. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372. doi:10.1136/BMJ.N71
  5. Pan F, Pan L, Zhang A, Liu Y, Zhang F, Dai Y. Comparison of two approaches in microsurgical varicocelectomy in Chinese infertile males. Urol Int. 2013;90(4):443-448. doi:10.1159/000345606
  6. Shiraishi K, Oka S, Matsuyama H. Surgical comparison of subinguinal and high inguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy for adolescent varicocele. International Journal of Urology. 2016;23(4):338-342. doi:10.1111/iju.13050
  7. Gontero P, Pretti G, Fontana F, Zitella A, Marchioro G, Frea B. 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. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2005.05.009
  8. Wang J, Xia SJ, Liu ZH, et al. Inguinal and subinguinal micro-varicocelectomy, the optimal surgical management of varicocele: A meta-analysis. Asian J Androl. 2015;17(1):74-80. doi:10.4103/1008-682X.136443
  9. Gontero P, Pretti G, Fontana F, Zitella A, Marchioro G, Frea B. 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. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2005.05.009
  10. Hopps C V., Lemer ML, Schlegel PN, Goldstein M. Intraoperative varicocele anatomy: A microscopic study of the inguinal versus subinguinal approach. Journal of Urology. 2003;170(6 I):2366-2370. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000097400.67715.f8
  11. Shiraishi K, Oka S, Matsuyama H. Surgical comparison of subinguinal and high inguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy for adolescent varicocele. International Journal of Urology. 2016;23(4):338-342. doi:10.1111/iju.13050
  12. Orhan I, Onur R, Semerciöz A, Firdolas F, Ardicoglu A, Köksal IT. Comparison of two different microsurgical methods in the treatment of varicocele. Arch Androl. 2005;51(3):213-220. doi:10.1080/01485010590919648
  13. Pan F, Pan L, Zhang A, Liu Y, Zhang F, Dai Y. Comparison of Two Approaches in Microsurgical Varicocelectomy in Chinese Infertile Males. Urol Int. 2013;90(4):443-448. doi:10.1159/000345606
  14. Cayan S, Shavakhabov S, Kadioglu A. Treatment of Palpable Varicocele in Infertile Men: A Meta-analysis to Define the Best Technique. J Androl. 2008;30(1):33-40. doi:10.2164/jandrol.108.005967
  15. Wang J, Liu Q, Wang X, et al. Modified Inguinal Microscope-Assisted Varicocelectomy under Local Anesthesia: A Non-randomised Controlled Study of 3565 Cases. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1). doi:10.1038/s41598-018-21313-0
  16. Marmar JL, Agarwal A, Prabakaran S, et al. Reassessing the value of varicocelectomy as a treatment for male subfertility with a new meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(3):639-648. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.12.008
  17. Afdal, Fakhri Zuhdian Nasher. Comparison of sperm parameters and fertility rate in subclinical varicocele patients treated with varicocelectomy versus no varicocelectomy: a systematic review. Bali Med J. 2022;11(3):1085-91. Available from: https://www.balimedicaljournal.org/index.php/bmj/article/view/3685

How to Cite

Wahyu Ali, M., Sangadji, A. R. S. ., Azmi, Y. A. ., Rizaldi, F. ., & Soebadi, D. M. . (2023). Efficacy and safety of microsurgical varicocelectomy with subinguinal and inguinal approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bali Medical Journal, 12(2), 1756–1761. https://doi.org/10.15562/bmj.v12i2.4528
ACM ACS APA ABNT Chicago Harvard IEEE MLA Turabian Vancouver
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

HTML
14

Total
7

Share

Search Panel

Muhammad Wahyu Ali
Google Scholar
Pubmed
BMJ Journal

Agung Ravi Saputra Sangadji
Google Scholar
Pubmed
BMJ Journal

Yufi Aulia Azmi
Google Scholar
Pubmed
BMJ Journal

Fikri Rizaldi
Google Scholar
Pubmed
BMJ Journal

Doddy Moesbadianto Soebadi
Google Scholar
Pubmed
BMJ Journal