Laparoscopic versus open surgical management of idiopathic varicocele: a study on 100 patients


  • Deepak Verma Department of Surgery, Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
  • Chhanwar Lal Department of Surgery, Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
  • Avdhesh Sharma Department of Surgery, Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
  • Manoj Sirwi Department of Surgery, Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India



Infertility, Laparoscopic, Paloma’s varicocelectomy, Varicocele


Background: Idiopathic varicocele is common condition encountered in surgical practice requiring surgical correction. Open surgical technique had been in use for long but laparoscopic varicocelectomy is another choice for its management.

Methods: This is a prospective study on 100 patients. 70 patients were subjected to laparoscopic and 30 to open inguinal varicocelectomy.

Results: Majority of patients were between 16 to 25 years of age. 55% were asymptomatic and 10% had infertility. Grade II varicocele was observed in 50% patients. All patients had left side involvement with bilateral varicocele in 2% patients. Mean operating was 13.8 min in unilateral and 17.3 min in bilateral laparoscopic varicocelectomy whereas it was 27.55 min in unilateral and 49.7 min in bilateral open varicocelectomy. 5.7% and 6.6% had secondary hydrocele and hospital stay was 1.25 and 3.4 days in laparoscopic and open group respectively.

Conclusions: Laparoscopic varicocelectomy is safe, effective procedure with less post-operative pain and analgesic requirement. It also has shorter operating time and post-operative hospital stay. Procedures like opposite varicocele, herniotomy, adhesiolysis or orchiopexy can also be done.

Author Biography

Deepak Verma, Department of Surgery, Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India

Senior Professor

Department of Surgery,

Dr.S.N.Medical College,

JODHPUR. Rajasthan


Shamsa A, Mohammadi L, Abolbashari M, Shakeri MT, Shamsa S. Comparison of open and laparoscopic varicocelectomies in terms of operative time, sperm parameters and complications. Urol J. 2009;6(3):170-5.

Khaier I, Binous MY, Attyaoul F, Nouira Y, Horchani A. Laparoscopic spermatic vessel ligation in the treatment of varicocele; report of 129 procedures. Ann Urol (Paris). 2002;36(5):329-33.

Tan SM, Ng FC, Ravindtharan T, Lim PH, Ching HC. Laparoscopic varicocelectomy: technique and results. Br J Urol. 1995;75(4):523-8.

Barroso U Jr, Andrade DM, Novaes H, Netto JM, Andrade J. Surgical treatment of variclcele in children with open and laparoscopic Palomo technique; a systemic review of the literature. J Urol. 2009;181(6):2724-8.

Esposito C, Monguzzi GL, Gonlalez-Sabin MA, Rubino R, Montinaro L, Papparella A, et al. Laparoscopic treatment of paediatric varicocele; a multicentre study of Italian society of video surgery in infancy. Urol. 2000;163(6):1944-6.

Huk J, Fryczkowaski H, Bihun A, Polac R. Laparoscopic varicocele ligation: the comparative assessment of artery ligating and artery preserving varicocelectomy. Wiad Lok. 2001;54(11-12):621-32.

Farhan SD, Muayed AF. Laparoscopic varicocelectomy for bilateral varicocele in infertile males. Iraqi PG Med J. 2011;10(3):234-7.

Al-Kandari AM, Shabaan H, Ibrahim HM, Elshabiny YH, Shokeir AA. Comparison of outcomes of different varicocelectomy techniques; open inguinal, laparoscopic and subinguinal microscopic variclcelectomy: a randomised clinical trial. Urol. 2007;69(3):417-20.

Ogura K, Matsuda T, Terachi T, Harii Y, Takeuchi H, Yoshida O. Laparoscopic varicocelectomy: invasiveness and effectiveness compared with conventional open retroperitoneal high ligation. Int J Urol. 1994;1(1):62-6.

Kacvara R, Dvoracek J, Sedlacek. Lymphatic sparing laparoscopic varicocelectomy. J Urol. 2005;173:1751.

Hassan JM, Adams MC, Pope JC 4th, Demarco RT, Brock JW 3rd Hydrocele formation following laparoscopic varicocelectomy. J Urol. 2006;175(3)(1):1076-9.

Agnifili A, Schietroma M, Carlei F, De Berardis B, Pescosolido A, Giuliani A, et al. Recurrence, testicular growth and semen parameters after laparoscopic Palomo varicocelectomy. Chir Ital. 2008;60(4):549-54.

Cimador M, Castagnetti M, Ajovalasit V, Libri M, Bertozzi M, De Grazia E. Sub-inguinal interruption of dilated veins in adolescent varicocele: should it be considered a gold standard technique? Minerva Pediatr. 2003;55(6):599-605.

McManus MC, Barqawi A, Meacham RB, Furness PD 3rd, Koyle MA. Laparoscopic varicocele ligation: are there advantages compared with microscopic sublingual approach? Urol. 2004;64(2):360-1.

Misseri R, Gershbein AB, Horowitz M, Glassberg KI. The adolescent varicoceleII: the incidence of hydrocele and delayed recurrent varicocele after varicocelectomy in a long-term follow-up. B J U Int. 2001;87:494-8.

Mendz-Gallar R, Baustista-Casasnovas A, Estevez-Martrinez E, Varela-Cives R. Laparoscopic Palomo varicocele surgery ; lessons learned after 10 years’ follow-up of 156 consecutive patients. J Pediatr Urol. 2009;5(2):126-31.

Spaziani E, Silecchia G, Ricci S, Raparelli L, Matenia A, Fontini A, et al. Minimal invasive approach for treatment of idiopathic varicocele. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1997;7(2):140-3.

Hirsch A, Abdel-Meguid TA, Gomella LG. Postsurgical outcome assessment following Varicocele ligation; Laparoscopic versus subinguinal approach. Urol. 1998;51(5):810-5.






Original Research Articles