Can the Hydrocele Sac Dissection Technique Affect the Surgical and Cosmetic Satisfaction Results of Conventional Hydrocelectomy?

Öz

Aim: In this study, we applied the classical technique and modified open pull-through procedure (OPtP) for hydrocele sac dissection in excisional Winkelmann hydrocelectomy procedure (WHP) to retrospectively compare the surgical and cosmetic satisfaction results of the two techniques. Material and Methods: Sixty-two patients underwent excisional WHP from 2017 to 2020. The modified OPtP and classical technique groups included 30 and 32 patients, respectively. The intraoperative and postoperative parameters of the patients in both groups were evaluated statistically until the postoperative second month. Cosmetic satisfaction was evaluated statistically at the postoperative sixth month. Results: Postoperative infection and recurrence were not observed in either group. The patients in both groups had large hydrocele sacs. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of the hydrocele sac volume, operation time, length of hospitalization, postoperative scrotal edema, and postoperative scrotal pain scores (p>0.05). The postoperative hematoma rate was 15.6% in the classical technique group. The statistical difference in incision length and cosmetic satisfaction was significant in favor of the modified OPtP group (p<0.05). Conclusion: Excisional WHP was determined to be safe in the treatment of large hydroceles. In the modified OPtP group, shorter scrotal incision length and low risk of postoperative scrotal hematoma were achieved, and cosmetic satisfaction was also increased.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• CHP
• WHP
• OPtP
• SMRI

Kaynakça

1. 1. Goldstein M. Surgicalmanagement of male infertility and other scrotal disorders.In;Walsh P, Retik A, Vaughan E, Wein A. Campbell’sUrology. Eight edition. 2002. 1578-80.
2. 2. Francis J, Levine L. Aspiration and sclerotherapy: a nonsurgical treatment option for hydroceles.J Urol. 2013;189(5):1725-9.3.
3. 3. Onol ŞY, Ilbey YO, Onol FF, et al. A novelpull-through technıque for the surgical management of idiopathic hydrocele. J Urol 2009; 181:1201-5.
4. 4. Chalasani V, Woo HH. Why not use a small incision to treat large hydroceles? ANZ J Surg. 2002 Aug;72(8):594-5.
5. 5. Junhao L, Chunhua L, YangyangZ,et al. A Comparison of a NovelEndoscopic "Su-WangTechnique" Withthe Open "Jaboulay'sProcedure" for the SurgicalTreatment of AdultPrimaryVaginalHydrocele.Sci Rep.2019;9(1):9152.
6. 6. Lundström KJ, Söderström L, Jernow H, et al. Epidemiology of hydrocele and spermatocele; incidence, treatment and complications. Scand J Urol. 2019; 53(2-3): 134-138.
7. 7. Ozkaya F, Cakıcı O. Jaboulay’s tecnique contrasted with a novel hydrocelectomy tecnıque usıng a vesselsealer in the treatment of adul thydrocele: a prospective randomized study. IntUrolNephrol. 2020;52(3):447-453.
8. 8. Oh JH, Chung HS, Yu HS, Kang TW, Kwon D, Kim SO. Hydrocelectomy via scrotal incision is a valuable alternative to the traditional inguinal approach for hydrocele treatment in boys. Investig Clin Urol. 2018 Nov;59(6):416-421

9. 9. Lasheen A. Hydrocelectomy through the inguinal approach versus scrotal approach for idiopathic hydrocele in adults. Journal of the Arap Socfor MedRes. 2012; 7: 68-72.
10. 10. Iacono F, Ruffo A, Prezisio D, et al. Treatment of bilateral varicocele and other scrotal comorbidities using a single scrotal access: Ourexperience on 34 patients. BiomedResInt. 2014;2014:403603.
11. 11. Kuwayama DP, Augustin J. Concurrent hydrocelectomy during inguinal herniorrhaphy is a risk factor for complications and reoperation: data from rural Haiti. Hernia. 2017 Oct;21(5):759-765. doi: 10.1007/s10029-017-1636-5.
12. 12. Saber A. Minimally Access versus conventional hydrocelectomy: a randomized trial. IntBraz J Urol ,2015; 41: 750-6.
13. 13. Tsai L, Milburn P, Cecil C, et al. Comparison of recurrence and postoperative complications between 3 different tecnıques for surgical repair of idiopathic hydrocele. Urology. 2019;125:239-242.
14. 14. Kliesch S. Hydrozele, Spermatozele und Vasektomie: Komplikationsmanagement [Hydrocele, spermatocele, and vasectomy: management of complications]. Urologe A. 2014 May;53(5):671-5.
15. 15. Swartz MA, Morgan TM, Krieger JN. Complications of scrotal surgery for benign conditions. Urology . 2007; 69: 616-9.
16. 16. Lund L, Kloster A, Cao T. TheLong-TermEfficacy of Hydrocele Treatment with Aspiration and Sclerotherapy with a ethoxysclerol compared to Placebo - a prospective double-blind randomized study. J Urol. 2014;191:1347–1350.
17. 17. Roosen JU, Larsen T, Iversen E, et al. A comparison of aspiration, antazoline sclerotherapy and surgery in the treatment of hydrocele.Br J Urol. 1991;68:404–406.