(287) Office-Based Epididymectomy and Spermatocelectomy Under Local Anesthesia – An Excellent Option to Avoid General Anesthesia and Increase Access to Timely Care

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Epididymectomy is indicated for patients with focal epididymal pain and bothersome epididymal cysts or masses. Similarly, spermatocelectomy is indicated for spermatoceles that have becomes symptomatic due to size or pain. The majority of scrotal surgeries are performed in the operating room (OR) using general or monitored anesthesia. Here, we sought to evaluate our experience with office-based epididymectomy and spermatocelectomy using only local anesthesia. Objective To evaluate post-procedural complications and pain resolution following epididymectomy or spermatocelectomy, comparing procedures performed in the clinic with only local anesthesia, compared to the OR. Methods We identified patients who underwent epididymectomy or spermatocelectomy at our institution from 2018-2021. A chart review was performed to identify pertinent information including whether the procedure was performed in the OR under monitored/general anesthesia versus in the clinic using only local anesthesia. Post-procedural outcomes including pain resolution (if applicable) and 30-day complications were compared between those who underwent epididymectomy or spermatocelectomy in the OR versus the office. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-squared test. Results A total of 112 patients were identified, including 23 (20.5%) who underwent epididymectomy and 89 (79.5%) who underwent spermatocelectomy. Mean patient follow-up was 14.8 months (SD 11.6). Indications for epididymectomy or spermatocelectomy included pain (n= 50, 44.6%), epididymal cyst/mass (n=6, 5.4%), and mass effect secondary to spermatocele (n=56, 50.0%). Fifty-seven procedures (50.9%) were performed in the office under local anesthesia. Nitrous oxide was used in 21 (36.8%) of these cases. Thirty-four patients (30.3%) were on anticoagulation/antiplatelet therapy prior to surgery including 22 (64.7%) who continued anticoagulation/antiplatelet therapy due to high-risk comorbidities. The adverse event rate within 30 days was similar between patients who underwent surgery in clinic versus OR (p=0.67). Specifically, adverse events occurred in 9 patients (8.0%), of whom 4 had their procedure performed in the clinic (7.0% of clinic procedures) and 5 had their procedure performed in the OR (9.1% of OR procedures). Specific adverse events included postoperative hematoma in 6 patients (66%) and a single case of each of the following: infection, inability to void postoperatively, and intestinal obstruction. Hematoma rates did not differ significantly between those who were or were not on anticoagulation perioperatively (p=0.057). In patients with reported adverse events, 3 (33.3%) required reoperation. Of the 50 patients who underwent epididymectomy or spermatocelectomy for scrotal content pain, 39 had sufficient documentation available to evaluate pain resolution. 82% (n=32) reported 50% improvement in pain. There was no statistically significant difference in the likelihood of reporting significant pain reduction based on the location of the procedure (OR versus clinic). Conclusions Epididymectomy and spermatocelectomy can be successfully carried out in the office using only local anesthesia, including in those patients who are high risk for general anesthesia or require maintenance of anticoagulation perioperatively. Pain improvement may be anticipated in the majority of appropriately selected patients following treatment in either the clinic or OR. Disclosure No