Comparative study of inguinal versus scrotal approach in idiopathic vaginal hydrocele.

Authors

  • Ishan Prafulla Agnihotri Department of Surgery, JNMC, Sawangi, Wardha, Maharashtra, India
  • S. C. Jain Department of Surgery, JNMC, Sawangi, Wardha, Maharashtra, India
  • Manish M. Swarnkar Department of Surgery, JNMC, Sawangi, Wardha, Maharashtra, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20181131

Keywords:

Hydrocelectomy, Idiopathic hydrocele, Inguinal approach, Scrotal edema

Abstract

Background: Hydrocele is a common cause of painless scrotal swelling worldwide.

Methods: Hydrocele is a common cause of painless scrotal swelling worldwide. This prospective study was carried out at AVBRH, Sawangi Wardha, Maharashtra, India with the aim of comparing scrotal and inguinal approaches of hydrocelectomy. 100 patients were enrolled between September 2015 and September 2017 and were randomly selected for inguinal and scrotal approaches (n=50 each). They were compared on the basis of volume of hydrocele sac, operative time, post-operative hospital stay, post-operative complications, number of doses of injectable analgesia required and time of return to daily life activity.

Results: The patients’ age ranged from 23 to 65 years (42.80±9.73 years) in the inguinal approach group and 22 to 65 years (41.30±11.21 years) in the scrotal approach group. Operative time in the scrotal approach group was less and was associated with more post-operative complications (pain and scrotal edema being frequent), longer hospital stay, increased requirement of injectable analgesia dosage. On the other hand, inguinal approach group had a marginally longer operative time and was associated with less post-operative pain, none to minimal complications, less hospital stay and early return to daily life activities.  

Conclusions: Thus, hydrocelectomy by inguinal approach is an effective alternative method for the treatment of idiopathic hydrocele.

References

Madlala T, Rencken R, Bornman M, Reif S, Joubert H, MERWE C. Biochemical analysis of tunica vaginalis fluid in patients with or without idiopathic hydroceles. BJU International. 1994;74(4):511-4.

Dogra VS, Gottlieb RH, Oka M, Rubens DJ. Sonography of the scrotum. Radiology. 2003;227(1):18-36.

Micallef M, Torreggiani W, Hurley M, Dinsmore W, Hogan B. The ultrasound investigation of scrotal swelling. Int J STD AIDS. 2000;11(5):297-302.

Christensen T, Cartwright PC, Devries C, Snow BW. New onset of hydroceles in boys over 1 year of age. Int J Urol. 2006;13(11):1425-7.

Leung ML, Gooding G, Williams RD. High-resolution sonography of scrotal contents in asymptomatic subjects. Am J Roentgenol. 1984;143(1):161-4.

Amuyunzu M. Community perception regarding chronic filarial swellings: a case study of the Duruma of coastal Kenya. East Afr Med J 1997;74(7):411-5.

Ceylan K, Yüksel Y, Hasan G, Alpaslan K. Inguinal approach in adult hydrocele surgery: preliminary randomized study. Adv Ther. 2006;23(1):159-62.

Nweze C. Hydrocelectomy: Experience with inguinal approach in the adult. Niger Med J. 2009;50(1):12.

Lasheen A. Hydrocelectomy through the inguinal approach versus scrotal approach for idiopathic hydrocele in adults. J Arab Soc Med Res. 2012;7:68-72.

Naik BM. A Clinical Study And Management of Cystic Swelling of the Scrotum: RGUHS; 2006.

Agrawal M, Yadav H, Upadhyay A, Jaiman R, Singhal J, Singh A. Sclerotherapy for hydrocele revisited: a prospective randomised study. Indian J Surg. 2009;71(1):23-8.

NagaMuneiah S, Sabitha P, Prakash GV. A comparative study of clinical presentation, surgical proceduresand complications of primary vaginal hydroces. JDMS. 2015;14(10):10-22.

Downloads

Published

2018-03-23

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles