Comparative analysis of Lord’s plication and Jaboulay’s eversion in the surgical management of primary vaginal hydrocele
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20260846Keywords:
Hydrocele, Lord’s plication, Jaboulay’s procedure, Hydrocelectomy, Postoperative Complications, Scrotal surgeryAbstract
Background: Hydrocele, a common benign cause of scrotal swelling, frequently requires surgical correction. Among available techniques, Lord’s plication and Jaboulay’s eversion are widely used, yet evidence comparing their outcomes remains inconclusive, particularly in the Indian context. Aim was to compare postoperative outcomes of Lord’s plication and Jaboulay’s eversion in adult males with primary vaginal hydrocele.
Methods: A prospective comparative observational study was conducted at a tertiary care centre between January 2024 and December 2025, enrolling 100 adult male patients with primary vaginal hydrocele. Based on sac wall thickness and size, 71 patients underwent Jaboulay’s eversion and 29 underwent Lord’s plication. Primary outcome was the rate of postoperative complications; secondary outcomes included pain on postoperative day (POD) 3 and 7, hospital stay duration, suture removal day, and recurrence at 6 months. Data followed STROBE guidelines; statistical analysis employed Fisher’s exact and Kruskal-Wallis tests, with p<0.05 considered significant.
Results: Postoperative complications occurred in 33% of patients, significantly lower in the Jaboulay group (17%) compared to Lord’s (72%) (p=0.002). Mean hospital stay was shorter following Jaboulay’s eversion (7.08±1.6 days) versus Lord’s plication (8.0±1.75 days; p<0.001). Suture removal occurred earlier after Jaboulay’s (5.9±0.7 days vs 7.2±1.1 days; p=0.002). No recurrence was observed in either group at 6 months.
Conclusions: Both procedures effectively treat primary hydrocele; however, Jaboulay’s eversion offers significantly fewer complications, less postoperative pain, and faster recovery. It should be preferred, particularly for large or thick-walled hydroceles.
Metrics
References
Baidya R, Saha A, Sengupta S. Clinicopathological study of hydrocele: A hospital-based study. Indian J Surg. 2015;77(2):S454-8.
Dandapat MC, Panda C. A clinical study of hydrocele and its management. Indian J Surg. 1984;46(2):150-4.
Mundy AR, Fitzpatrick JM. The management of benign scrotal swellings. Br J Urol. 1988;61(4):350-4.
Sood S, Kothari R, Kumar A. Primary vaginal hydrocele: surgical perspectives. Int Surg J. 2018;5(10):3323-7.
Agbakwuru EA, Salako AA, Olajide AO, Takure AO, Eziyi AK. Hydrocelectomy under local anaesthesia in Nigerian patients. Int J Urol. 2011;18(3):194-7.
Lord PH. A bloodless operation for the radical cure of idiopathic hydrocele. Br J Surg. 1964;51(6):914-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800511212
Le Lin, Gao Q, Lu Y. Modified Lord’s plication for the treatment of idiopathic hydrocele. Asian J Surg. 2005;28(1):12-5.
Jaboulay M. La cure radicale de l’hydrocèle vaginale par l’éversion du sac. Revue de Chirurgie. 1895;15:70-72.
Shirke SK, Gaikwad V, Jadhav AV, Khadse S. Comparative study between Lord’s plication and Jaboulay’s operation in the management of primary vaginal hydrocele. J Med Sci Clin Res. 2019;7(6):1262-8.
Ahmed MHS, Patil SB, Deshmukh SS. Comparison of Lord’s plication and Jaboulay’s operation in the management of primary vaginal hydrocele. Int J Surg Sci. 2018;2(4):99-103.
Aly Saber A, Shalaby M, El Ghawalby N. Evaluation of Lord’s plication versus Jaboulay’s operation for the treatment of primary vaginal hydrocele. Egypt J Surg. 2014;33(2):89-94.
Santhi S, Chandrasekaran R, Babu R. Comparative evaluation of Lord’s and Jaboulay’s techniques in hydrocelectomy. Indian J Clin Pract. 2021;31(10):897-902.
Wani RA, Malik AA, Wani AA, Parray FQ. Hydrocelectomy: comparison of Lord’s and Jaboulay’s methods. Saudi J Health Sci. 2014;3(1):25-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5348/ijcri-2012-06-128-RA-1
Uche EO, Ukechukwu GC. Comparative outcomes of Jaboulay’s and Lord’s procedures for hydrocele. Niger J Surg. 2016;22(2):97-100.
World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053
Hamilton Bailey H, McNeill Love RJ. Demonstrations of Physical Signs in Clinical Surgery. 19th ed. London: Hodder Arnold. 2016.
Pansota MS, Rasool M, Tabassum SA. Modified Lord’s plication versus excision and eversion of sac for hydrocele: A comparative study. Pak J Med Health Sci. 2012;6(4):1050-3.
McAninch JW, Lue TF. Smith and Tanagho’s General Urology. 19th ed. New York: McGraw Hill. 2020.
Saber A, Hegazy M, Abdalla T. Comparative evaluation of two surgical procedures for primary hydrocele. Surg Sci. 2014;5(4):158-63.
Santhi S, Babu R. Comparative outcomes in hydrocelectomy: Jaboulay versus Lord’s. Int J Med Health Res. 2021;7(2):67-70.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
