You have accessJournal of UrologyInfertility: Therapy1 Apr 20121990 MACROSCOPIC AND MICROSURGICAL VARICOCELECTOMY WHAT'S THE INTRAOPERATIVE DIFFERENCE? Yan Zhang, Xiaopeng Liu, Hao Zhang, Xingxing Ruan, Hengjun Xiao, Wentao Huang, Liaoyuan Li, and Xin Gao Yan ZhangYan Zhang Guangzhou, China, People's Republic of More articles by this author , Xiaopeng LiuXiaopeng Liu Guangzhou, China, People's Republic of More articles by this author , Hao ZhangHao Zhang Guangzhou, China, People's Republic of More articles by this author , Xingxing RuanXingxing Ruan Guangzhou, China, People's Republic of More articles by this author , Hengjun XiaoHengjun Xiao Guangzhou, China, People's Republic of More articles by this author , Wentao HuangWentao Huang Guangzhou, China, People's Republic of More articles by this author , Liaoyuan LiLiaoyuan Li Guangzhou, China, People's Republic of More articles by this author , and Xin GaoXin Gao Guangzhou, China, People's Republic of More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.2151AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Many authors reported that microsurgical varicocelectomy was among the best treatment modalities for varicocele in term of the spontaneous pregnancy outcomes and complication rates. However, the “cause” or the “mechanism” of the “outcome”, the difference of intraoperative anatomic detail between macroscopic and microsurgical varicocele repair in the same spermatic cord has not been critically discussed. In order to investigate the intraoperative difference, we first mimicked the “traditional open inguinal varicoceletomy” by identifying, isolating and marking but not ligated any vessel and then checked the “results” with operating microscope. METHODS Between August 2010 and February 2011, thirty-two men with forty-two side grade 2-3 varicoceles were included in the study. Among the patients, 21(66%) had scrotal pain, 9(28%) had infertility and both for 2(6%). The modified inguinal varicocelectomy were performed by X.L. (macroscopic technique) and Y.Z. (microsurgical technique) respectively. One doctor (X.L.) mimicked the traditional inguinal open varicocelectomy by identifying and isolating the presumed internal spermatic veins, lymphatic and artery, then marked and encircled them respectively, but the encircled presumed veins was not ligated. Another doctor (Y.Z.) checked the same spermatic cord under 8× to 10×power magnification with operating microscope to investigate how many veins were missed, how many lymphatic and artery were to be ligated because of incorrect identification in the “imitative” open varicocelectomy. RESULTS There were significant differences in the average number of internal spermatic artery (1.67 vs. 0.91), internal spermatic vein (6.45 vs. 4.31) and lymphatic (2.93 vs. 1.17) between microscopic and macroscopic procedure (P<0.001, P<0.001, P<0.001, respectively). Meanwhile, an average of 2.14±1.26 internal spermatic veins were missed, among them 1.63±1.32 internal spermatic veins adherent to the preserved testicular artery were overlooked. The number of 0.69±0.84 lymphatic and 0.74±0.74 arteries was to be ligated in “macroscopic varicocelectomy”. A number of 1.07±1.11 lymphatic were neither identified nor ligated. In addition, in 2 cases the vasal vessels were to be ligated at macroscopic procedure. CONCLUSIONS Microsurgical inguinal varicocelectomy techniques can preserve more internal spermatic artery and lymphatic; ligate more internal spermatic veins which can interpret the mechanism of the superiority of microsurgical technique in the varicocele repair. © 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 4SApril 2012Page: e803 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Yan Zhang Guangzhou, China, People's Republic of More articles by this author Xiaopeng Liu Guangzhou, China, People's Republic of More articles by this author Hao Zhang Guangzhou, China, People's Republic of More articles by this author Xingxing Ruan Guangzhou, China, People's Republic of More articles by this author Hengjun Xiao Guangzhou, China, People's Republic of More articles by this author Wentao Huang Guangzhou, China, People's Republic of More articles by this author Liaoyuan Li Guangzhou, China, People's Republic of More articles by this author Xin Gao Guangzhou, China, People's Republic of More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...