Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic ICG-fluorescence lymphatic-sparing palomo varicocelectomy: a comparative retrospective study of techniques and outcomes

Abstract

PurposeThis study aimed to compare techniques and outcomes of robotic-assisted varicocelectomy (RAV) and laparoscopic varicocelectomy (LV).MethodsThe medical records of 40 patients, who received RAV and LV over a 2-year period, were retrospectively analyzed. Palomo lymphatic-sparing varicocelectomy using ICG fluorescence was adopted in all cases. Three 5-mm trocars were placed in LV, whereas four ports, three 8-mm and one 5-mm, were placed in RAV. The spermatic vessels were ligated using clips in LV and ligatures in RAV. The two groups were compared regarding patient baseline and operative outcomes.ResultsAll patients, with median age of 14 years (range 11–17), had left grade 3 varicocele according to Dubin–Amelar. All were symptomatic and 33/40 (82.5%) presented left testicular hypotrophy. All procedures were completed without conversion. The average operative time was significantly shorter in LV [20 min (range 11–30)] than in RAV [34.5 min (range 30–46)] (p = 0.001). No significant differences regarding analgesic requirement and hospitalization were observed (p = 0.55). At long-term follow-up (30 months), no complications occurred in both groups. The cosmetic outcome was significantly better in LV than RAV at 6-month and 12-month evaluations (p = 0.001). The total cost was significantly lower in LV (1.587,07 €) compared to RAV (5.650,31 €) (p = 0.001).ConclusionRAV can be safely and effectively performed in pediatric patients, with the same excellent outcomes as conventional laparoscopic procedure. Laparoscopy has the advantages of faster surgery, smaller instruments, better cosmesis and lower cost than robotics. To date, laparoscopy remains preferable to robotics to treat pediatric varicocele.