Objective: To compare the outcomes of two approaches (inguinal and subinguinal) of microsurgical varicocelectomy (MV) in Chinese infertile men. Patients and Methods: 120 infertile men who met the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to two groups and operated with MV using different approaches. The outcomes and complications were then compared. Results: The two groups were similar in all aspects except the percentage of patients using analgesic at 27 h postoperatively (57.6% in the inguinal group, 37.5% in the subinguinal group; p < 0.05). Spontaneous pregnancy was achieved at a ratio of 33.9% in the inguinal group and 30.4% in subinguinal group. The median values of semen parameters were significantly improved postoperatively in both groups. Conclusions: Both approaches are effective methods in the repair of varicocele in infertile men, but more analgesic medication at the first day after operation may be required in inguinal group.

Keywords:
Infertility, Varicocelectomy, Microsurgery, Chinese men, Pregnancy rate
1.
Schlesinger MH, Wilets IF, Nagler HM: Treatment outcome after varicocelectomy: a critical analysis. Urol Clin North Am 1994;21:517-529.
2.
Gorelick JI, Goldstein M: Loss of fertility in men with varicocele. Fertil Steril 1993;59:613-616.
3.
Meacham RB, Townsend RR, Rademacher D, Drose JA: The incidence of varicoceles in the general population when evaluated by physical examination, gray scale sonography and color Doppler sonography. J Urol 1994;151:1535-1538.
4.
Jarow JP: Effects of varicocele on male fertility. Hum Reprod Update 2001;7:59-64.
5.
Madgar I, Weissenberg R, Lunenfeld B, Karasik A, Goldwasser B: Controlled trial of high spermatic vein ligation for varicocele in infertile men. Fertil Steril 1995;63:120-124.
6.
Marmar JL, Agarwal A, Prabakaran S, Agarwal R, Short RA, Benoff S, Thomas AJ Jr: Reassessing the value of varicocelectomy as a treatment for male subfertility with a new meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2007;88:639-648.
7.
Cayan S, Kadioglu TC, Tefekli A, Kadioglu A, Tellaloglu S: Comparison of results and complications of high ligation surgery and microsurgical high inguinal varicocelectomy in the treatment of varicocele. Urology 2000;55:750-754.
8.
Cayan S, Shavakhabov S, Kadioglu A: Treatment of palpable varicocele in infertile men: a meta-analysis to define the best technique. J Androl 2009;30:33-40.
9.
Abdel-Maguid AF, Othman I: Microsurgical and nonmagnified subinguinal varicocelectomy for infertile men: a comparative study. Fertil Steril 2010;94:2600-2603.
10.
Hopps CV, Lemer ML, Schlegel PN, Goldstein M: Intraoperative varicocele anatomy: a microscopic study of the inguinal versus subinguinal approach. J Urol 2003;170:2366-2370.
11.
Gontero P, Pretti G, Fontana F, Zitella A, Marchioro G, Frea B: Inguinal versus subinguinal varicocele vein ligation using magnifying loupe under local anesthesia: which technique is preferable in clinical practice? Urology 2005;66:1075-1079.
12.
Marmar JL, Kim Y: Subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy: a technical critique and statistical analysis of semen and pregnancy data. J Urol 1994;152:1127-1132.
13.
Salama N, Tsuji M, Tamura M, Kagawa S: Proliferating cell nuclear antigen in testes of infertile men with varicocele-preliminary results of interrelationship with sperm count before and after varicocelectomy. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2003;37:48-52.
14.
Mancini A, De Marinis L, Littarru GP, Balercia G: An update of Coenzyme Q10 implications in male infertility: biochemical and therapeutic aspects. Biofactors 2005;25:165-174.
15.
Rajfer J, Turner TT, Rivera F, Howards SS, Sikka SC: Inhibition of testicular testosterone biosynthesis following experimental varicocele in rats. Biol Reprod 1987;36:933-937.
16.
Hurt GS, Howards SS, Turner TT: Repair of experimental varicoceles in the rat: long-term effects on testicular blood flow and temperature and cauda epididymidal sperm concentration and motility. J Androl 1986;7:271-276.
17.
Sofikitis NV, Miyagawa I, Incze P, Andrighetti S: Detrimental effect of left varicocele on the reproductive capacity of the early haploid male gamete. J Urol 1996;156:267-270.
18.
Sofikitis N, Miyagawa I: Bilateral effect of unilateral varicocele on testicular metabolism in the rabbit. Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud 1994;39:239-247.
19.
Orhan I, Onur R, Semercioz A, et al: Comparison of two different microsurgical methods in the treatment of varicocele. Arch Androl 2005;51:213-220.
20.
Libman JL, Segal R, Baazeem A, Boman J, Zini A: Microanatomy of the left and right spermatic cords at subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy: comparative study of primary and redo repairs. Urology 2010;75:1324-1327.
21.
Gat Y, Bachar GN, Zukerman Z, Belenky A, Gornish M: Varicocele: a bilateral disease. Fertil Steril 2004;81:424-429.
22.
Sofikitis N, Takahashi C, Nakamura I, Hirakawa S, Miyagawa I: Surgical repair of secondary right varicocele in rats with primary left varicocele: effects on fertility, testicular temperature, spermatogenesis, and sperm maturation. Arch Androl 1992;28:43-52.
23.
Sofikitis N, Miyagawa I: Left adrenalectomy in varicocelized rats does not inhibit the development of varicocele-related physiologic alterations. Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud 1993;38:250-255.
24.
Franco G, Iori F, de Dominicis C, Dal Forno S, Mander A, Laurenti C: Challenging the role of cremasteric reflux in the pathogenesis of varicocele using a new venographic approach. J Urol 1999;161:117-121.
25.
Pan LJ, Xia XY, Hugang YF, Gao JP: Microsurgical varicocelectomy for male infertility. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue 2008;14:640-644.
26.
Minevich E, Wacksman J, Lewis AG, Sheldon CA: Inguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy in the adolescent: technique and preliminary results. J Urol 1998;159:1022-1024.
27.
Ghanem H, Anis T, El-Nashar A, Shamloul R: Subinguinal microvaricocelectomy versus retroperitoneal varicocelectomy: comparative study of complications and surgical outcome. Urology 2004;64:1005-1009.
28.
Watanabe M, Nagai A, Kusumi N, et al: Minimal invasiveness and effectivity of subinguinal microscopic varicocelectomy: a comparative study with retroperitoneal high and laparoscopic approaches. Int J Urol 2005;12:892-898.
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.