Search

During adolescence, the risk of developing a varicocele increases. Prevalence is less than 1% in boys aged younger than 10 years, but approaches that of the general adult population (about 15%) during puberty. For adolescent males with varicoceles, surgical risk factors have not yet been clearly delineated and clinical severity correlates poorly with prognosis. Fortunately, the widespread use of Doppler ultrasonography is transforming the diagnostic work-up for this demographic. A continuous reflux detected by color Doppler ultrasound (CDUS) is thought to have a negative prognostic value and evidence suggests that a peak retrograde flow above 38 cm per second is a powerful predictor of lack of spontaneous improvement in adolescent patients with ≥ 20% asymmetry between testes. CDUS also enables the detection of varicocele resulting from reflux in the deferential vein adjunctive to a refluxing internal spermatic vein; a causality that accounts for approximately 15% of cases. In addition to a diagnostic role, hemodynamic parameters can be used to predict the risk of persistence or worsening asymmetry. Although further studies are necessary to validate single parameters, it seems that the more severe the reflux, the greater the likelihood that the patient will develop testicular asymmetry.

Background: This study aimed to assess whether deferential reflux in pediatric and adolescent varicocele can be successfully treated laparoscopically., Materials and Methods: Since 2001 at our institution, 148 boys were evaluated for a left varicocele. Preoperatively,all the patients underwent ultrasound scan assessment of testicular volume and color-Doppler US (CDUS)to rule out reflux into the internal spermatic vein (ISV), deferential vein, or cremasteric vein. Boys with ISV reflux were treated by laparoscopic transperitoneal Palomo; boys with isolated deferential reflux or associated to ISV reflux were laparoscopically managed adding to the former procedure, coagulation or clipping of refluxing deferential veins., Results: Reflux in both the ISV and the deferential vein was observed in 21 (14.1%) out 148 boys with varicocele.Only one case (0.6%) of varicocele was caused by an isolated deferential reflux. No reflux in the cremasteric vein was observed. After a median follow up period of 2 years (range, 6 months-5 years), none of our patients with deferential reflux experienced varicocele recurrence either clinically or according to CDUS scanning.No testicular atrophy was observed., Conclusion: Our diagnostic approach is a rigorous standard for identifying all the venous systems concurring with the varicocele. Our proposed technique with laparoscopic interruption or coagulation of deferential veins when proved by CDUS to be refluxing may allow successful treatment for most varicoceles. This method allows reduction in recurrence of varicocele due to a missed deferential reflux.

Objective: To review the evolution in indications for treatment and treatment modalities for adolescent varicocele at our centre, and evaluate the impact of varicocelectomy on final outcome., Patients and Methods: Between 1995 and 2006, we treated 242 left varicoceles. Preoperative assessment included clinical evaluation, measurement of testicular volumes, and colour-Doppler ultrasound (CDUS). A subinguinal varicocelectomy was performed in 124 patients (group A), and a laparoscopic non-artery-sparing Palomo procedure in the remaining 118 (group B). In group B patients, CDUS was also used to investigate the functional anatomy of varicocele, and all the veins found to be refluxing were divided during surgery. The two groups were compared with regard to indications for surgery and outcome., Results: Over time the proportion of patients operated on because of testicular growth retardation increased. Persistence/recurrence rate was comparable between the two groups. In 13% of group B patients, the deferential vein was found to be refluxing on preoperative CDUS and was divided at surgery. Hydrocele rate was higher in group A, unless the vaginalis was excised and everted during varicocelectomy. About 75% of patients with preoperative left testicular growth failure experienced postoperative catch-up growth, irrespective of treatment., Conclusion: Indications for treatment are still evolving. Varicocele can successfully be treated in the majority of cases by either a laparoscopic or subinguinal approach. Both techniques require care, and CDUS can aid in the decision making. Most patients with preoperative testicular growth failure experience postoperative catch-up growth.

Unlabelled: In a study from Italy, colour-Doppler ultrasonography was a reliable diagnostic tool in the preoperative assessment of patients with varicocele. The authors also found that it helped to distinguish those who could be treated laparoscopically from those who should be treated by microsurgical subinguinal ligature., Objective: To investigate whether colour Doppler ultrasonography (CDUS) is a reliable diagnostic tool for selecting patients with varicocele to undergo either laparoscopy or open microsurgical subinguinal ligation., Patients and Methods: In a 3-year period, 42 boys affected by left varicocele were evaluated before surgery by inguinal and scrotal CDUS. Using this method it was possible to distinguish Coolsaet type-1 varicocele (due to isolated renal-internal spermatic vein reflux) and Coolsaet type-3 varicocele (due to associated renal-internal spermatic reflux and iliac-deferential reflux). Boys with Coolsaet type-1 varicocele were treated by a laparoscopic transperitoneal Palomo procedure, whereas those with Coolsaet type-3 varicoceles were treated by lymphatic-sparing microsurgical subinguinal ligation., Results: The varicocele was Coolsaet type-3 in six patients (14%), who had microsurgical open surgery, and the remaining 36 (86%) had Coolsaet type-1 and had laparoscopic surgery. At the follow-up there was no venous scrotal reflux. In two patients in the laparoscopic group a hydrocele developed after surgery, which resolved spontaneously., Conclusions: This study showed that CDUS was a reliable diagnostic tool for assessing boys with varicocele. It clearly distinguished Coolsaet-type 1 varicoceles that can be treated laparoscopically, from Coolsaet type-3 varicoceles that should be treated with microsurgical subinguinal ligature.