Outcomes after eversion of sac and subtotal excision of sac in cases of primary hydrocele

Abstract

Background/Aim: Hydrocele is a common disease worldwide, and an effective treatment for it is surgery. The commonly performed procedures for its treatment are a) excisional technique — subtotal excision of the sac and b) Jaboulay’s procedure — eversion of the hydrocele sac. This study aimed to evaluate the merits and demerits of eversion of the sac versus subtotal excision in terms of complications, postoperative hospital stays, and recurrence rate. Methods: This prospective study was conducted at a large surgical center. Patients who presented with scrotal swelling and were diagnosed as primary hydrocele cases constituted the study population (100 in all). Subtotal excisions or eversions of the sac were performed depending on the type of hydrocele encountered preoperatively. Follow-up was done at 1week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively. Results: Eversion of the sac was done in 70 cases, and subtotal excision was done in 30 cases. Incidence of edema, intense pain, and hematoma formation was higher in the group undergoing excision of the sac compared to those undergoing eversion of the sac. The average postoperative hospital stay was 3–5 days in the eversion group. The average postoperative hospital stay was 7–9 days in the subtotal excision group. No recurrence was noted in either of the study groups during the stays study period. Conclusion: Eversion of the sac was associated with fewer postoperative complications, minimal tissue handling, and good hemostatic control compared to subtotal excision of the sac. Patients who underwent eversion of the sac received earlier discharge than those undergoing a subtotal excision of the sac for primary vaginal hydrocele.

Keywords

• Hydrocele
• Eversion of sac
• Subtotal excision of sac

References

1. 1. Babu BV, Mishra S, Nayak AN. Marriage, Sex, and Hydrocele: An Ethnographic Study on the Effect of Filarial Hydrocele on Conjugal Life and Marriageability from Orissa, India. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2009;3(4):e414. doi: 10.1371/Journal.pntd.0000414.
2. 2. Ku JH, Khim ME, Lee NK, Parle YH. The excisional plication and internal drainage techniques: A comparison of the results for idiopathic hydrocele. BJU Int. 2001 Jan;87(1):82-4. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.00022.x
3. 3. Das S. Textbook of General Surgery: Treatment of hydrocele. India: SD Publisher; 2006.pp.1280-1284.
4. 4. Flower CG. Treatment of Hydrocele. In: Williams NS, Christopher JKB, O’Connell PR, eds. Bailey and Love’s Short Practice of Surgery. London; Hodder Arnold; 2008. pp.1381-2.
5. 5. Ananthkrishnan N, Pani SP. Surgery For Vaginal Hydrocele: an update.Indian Jour. Urology. 2005;21:35-8. doi:10.4104/0970-1591.19549
6. 6. Shenoy SP, Shankar M, Marla PK, Saber. New Minimal access hydrocelectomy. Urology. 2011;77:487-90.
7. 7. Frank A, Celigoj, Raymond A. Costabile Surgery of the Scrotum and seminal vesicle. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Partin AW, Peters CA, eds. Campbell-Walsh Urology. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2015. pp. 946-7.
8. 8. Undre AR. Treatment of primary hydrocele. JIMA. 1956;47:224.

9. 9. Jachowski Jr LA, Gonzalez-Flores B, Lichtenberg FV. Filarial Etiology of Tropical Hydroceles in Puerto Rico. Amer Jour Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 1962 Mar;11(2):220-33. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1962.11.220
10. 10. Agbakwuru EA, Salako AA, Olajide AO, Takure AO, Eziyi AK. Hydrocelectomy under Local Anesthesia in a Nigerian Adult Population. African Health Science. 2008;8(3):160-2.
11. 11. Paderla A. Surgery for Hydrocele in Adults. British Journal of Surgery.2005Dec; 73(1):77-8.
12. 12. Reddy RSN, Srinivas A. The Lord Operation for Radical Cure of Hydrocele. Ind Jour Surg. 1973 Mar;35:136.
13. 13. Lord MD. A Case of Abdomino Scrotal Hydrocele en bissac. British Journal of Surg. 1959 May;46:645. doi: 10.1002/bjs.18004620022
14. 14. Efron G, Sharkey GG. The Lord Operation for Hydrocele Surgery. Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 1967 Sep;125(3):603-6.