Lymphatic-Sparing Laparoscopic Varicocelectomy Versus Microscopic Varicocelectomy: Is There a Difference?

ObjectivesThe ideal operation for the adolescent varicoceles has been debated for many years as new techniques or advances in existing technology develop. It is well acknowledged that the Palomo procedure has a negligible recurrence rate but a very high postoperative hydrocele rate compared with a microscopic varicocelectomy (MV). We sought to determine whether lymphatic-sparing laparoscopic varicocelectomy (LSLV) could provide similar negligible recurrence rates as the Palomo approach with the negligible postoperative hydrocele rate seen with MV.MethodsWe performed a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent either an MV (n = 31) or LSLV (n = 28). In the MV group, the artery and the lymphatics were spared, whereas in the LSLV group, the artery and veins were taken en masse. Statistical analysis included paired Student t-test and Chi-square test for continuous and categorical variables, respectively.ResultsPreoperative testis volumes were not different nor were the postoperative testis volumes between groups. Mean operating time was significantly longer in the MV than the LSLV group (140 minutes versus 51 minutes, P <0.01). With a mean time since surgery of 2 years, we observed only one patient with a recurrent varicocele (MV group); only one patient developed a hydrocele requiring hydrocelectomy (LSLV group).ConclusionsOur early data indicate that LSLV and MV are comparable in preventing varicocele recurrence and formation of hydroceles. The primary difference between the procedures is the surgical time, with the LSLV being much faster to perform.