MINIMALLY INVASIVE HYDROCOELECTOMY SHOWS BETTER OUTCOME IN TREATMENT OF ADULT TESTICULAR HYDROCOELE IN A RURAL TERTIARY CARE CENTRE: PROSPECTIVE STUDY

Dr. Dhrubajyoti Maulik, Dr. Oli Das Adhikary

Abstract


BACKGROUND: Hydrocele is among the commonest benign conditions of scrotum. Its incidence is around 1% in adult male population with a predilection for males above 40 years of age. Conventional surgical procedures like Jaboulays Eversion of Sac (EOS) and Lords plication of redundant tunica vaginalis remain the most

commonly used procedures used in the treatment of idiopathic adult hydrocele.But they are more invasive & complication rate are high.To reduce these complication rate we used minimally invasive hydocoelectomy procedure in our study.

AIMS: The aim of this study is to compare the operative outcomes among the primary vaginal hydrocele patients those underwent minimal access hydrocelectomy and conventional hydrocelectomy.

SETTINGS & DESIGN: This prospective study was conducted at Bankura Sammilani Medical College & Hospital for a period of 18 month on a study population of 60 patients .

MATERIAL AND METHODS: .62  patients of primary vaginal type hydrocele with ASA grade 1 were randomly allocated into two groups .one Mini-Hydroceletomy (Group A) and the other group routine Jaboulays EOS (Group B). All the patients were followed up for a period ranging from 6-18 months.there outcomes compared

SummaryThe MIH for hydrocelectomy provided satisfactory cosmetic results with a 2 cm scrotal incision only. It resulted in no recurrence, fewer complications, and rapid postoperative rehabilitation in comparison to the traditional “JES procedure.” So The minimally invasive hydrocoelectomy  may be gold standard  for the  conventional surgical treatment of adult primary vaginal hydrocele.

 


Keywords


Eversion of Sac (EOS), HYDROCOELECTOMY, RURAL TERTIARY

Full Text:

PDF

References


Christopher Fowler. The Testes and Scrotum. Chapter 79. In: Bailey and Love’s Short Practice of Surgery, Norman S Williams, Christopher J K Bulstrode, P Ronan O Connell(eds). 25th Edition, London: Arnold publishers 2008; 1377-1416.

Mihmanli I, Kantarci F, Kulaksizoglu H, Gurses B, Ogut G, Unluer E, et al. Testicular size and vascular resistance before and after hydrocelectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183:1379-85

Biplab Mandal et al. Bancroftian filariasis in four slums of Bankura, Westbengal.vol6 ,issue 9,September 2016 page 699-708

Hu, K. N., Khan, A. S. & Gonder, M. Sclerotherapywith tetracycline solution for hydrocele. Urology 24, 572 (1984).

Ho, G. T., Ball, R. A., Schuessler, W. & Kavoussi, L. R. Efficacy of endoscopic hydrocele ablation. J Endourol 7, 71 (1993).

Aslan, M., Kilinc, M., Yilmaz, K. & Özturk, A. A new approach in the management of the hydrocele with a silicone catheter. Urology 63, 170 (2004).

Jaboulay M. Chirurgie des centres nerveux des viscères et des membres. Lyon/Paris Storck 192 (1902).

Lord, P. H. A bloodless operation for the radical cure of idiopathic hydrocele. Brit J Surg 51, 914–6 (1964).

Swartz, M. A., Todd, M. M. & Krieger, J. N. Complications of scrotal surgery for benign conditions. Urology 69, 616–9 (2007).

Kiddoo, D. A., Wollin, T. A. & Mador, D. R. A population-based assessment of complications following outpatient hydrocelectomy and spermatocelectomy. J Urol 171, 746–8 (2004).

Zahalsky, M. P., Berman, A. J. & Nagler, H. M. Evaluating the risk of epididymal injury during hydrocelectomy and spermatocelectomy. J Urol 171, 2291 (2004).

Bijur, P. E., Silver, W. & Gallagher, E. J. Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. Acad Emerg Med 8, 1153–57 (2001).

Onol SY, Ilbey YO, Onol FF, et al. A novel pull-through technique for the surgical management of idiopathic hydrocele. J

Urol. 2009;181:1201-05.

Saber A. New minimally access hydrocelectomy. Urology.2011;77:487-90.

Rioja J, Sánchez-Margallo FM, Usón J, Rioja LA. Adult hydrocele and spermatocele. BJU Int. 2011;107:1852-64.

Ozdilek S. The pathogenesis of idiopathic hydrocele and a simple operative technique. J Urol 1957; 77:

-284 [PMID: 13406878 DOI: 10.1097/00007890-195804000-00008]

Darzi A, Mackay S. Recent advances in minimal access surgery. BMJ 2002; 324: 31-34 [PMID: 11777804

DOI: 10.1136/bmj.324.7328.31]

Chalasani V, Woo HH. Why not use a small incision to treat large hydroceles? ANZ J Surg 2002; 72: 594-

[PMID: 12190736 DOI: 10.1046/j.1445-2197.2002.02469.x]

Kim JK, Shin JH, Lim JS. 10-Year retrospective study of the operative treatment results of adult type hydrocele. Korean J Urol. 2008;49:82-87.

. Beiko DT, Kim D, Morales A. Aspiration and sclerotherapy versus hydrocelectomy for treatment of hydroceles. Urology.2003;61:708-12

Shan CJ, Lucon AM, Arap S. Comparative study of sclerotherapy with phenol and surgical treatment for hydrocele. J Urol. 2003;169: 1056-1059.

Khaniya S, Agrawal CS, Koirala R, et al. Comparison of aspiration- sclerotherapy with hydrocelectomy in the management of hydrocele: A prospective randomized study. IntJ Surg. 2009;7:39239


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.