
==== Front
Turk J Med Sci
Turk J Med Sci
Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences
1300-0144
1303-6165
Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK)

10.55730/1300-0144.5849
tjmed-54-04-778
Research Article
Use of intraoperative microvascular Doppler during subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy in children reduces complications
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4265-4013
KAYA Cem 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3433-7301
ERYILMAZ Sibel 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4803-8900
KAPISIZ Alparslan 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7114-068X
ATAN Ali 2
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9624-3258
KARABULUT Ramazan 1*
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3464-9628
TÜRKYILMAZ Zafer 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3914-7128
SÖNMEZ Kaan 1
1 Department of Pediatric Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkiye
2 Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkiye
* Correspondence: karabulutr@yahoo.com
2024
23 5 2024
54 4 778783
03 12 2023
23 8 2024
23 5 2024
© TÜBİTAK
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Background/Aim

This study assessed the impact of intraoperative microvascular Doppler ultrasonography (MDU) during microsurgical subinguinal varicocele correction in children.

Materials and methods

Nineteen patients who underwent intraoperative MDU during subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy between 2021 and 2023 were included in this study. Each patient’s age, varicocele side, clinical examination findings, preoperative ultrasonography results, intraoperative findings, spermatic artery counts and findings in terms of MDU use, postoperative complications, and results were evaluated.

Results

All varicoceles were on the left side and the average age of the patients was 15.2 years. The indications for varicocelectomy were testicular hypotrophy (n = 10) and scrotal pain or fullness (n = 9). When a surgical microscope was used, testicular artery pulsation was detected in only five patients, whereas it was detected in all cases when MDU was used. In 16 cases, a single testicular artery was identified, and two arteries were identified in three cases. Additionally, in a case where a spermatic vein was suspected, it was not ligated due to the detection of pulsation with an arterial pattern using MDU. Two to three lymphatic channels were isolated and preserved, an average of 7.5 vessels were ligated, and five external spermatic veins were identified and ligated. There were no complications, and six of the patients with testicular hypotrophy showed signs of the catch-up growth phenomenon.

Conclusion

The use of MDU during subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy in children not only increases the success rate but also minimizes complications such as hydrocele and recurrence.

Varicocele
children
microvascular Doppler
microsurgery
==== Body
pmc1. Introduction

Abnormal dilatation and tortuosity of the internal spermatic veins within the pampiniform plexus can result in a varicocele [1], which is the most prevalent condition that can be surgically corrected in teenagers. Varicoceles may cause scrotal pain or swelling. The main method used to diagnose varicoceles is a physical examination in a standing position [2]. High-grade varicoceles may result in the scrotum above the testicles having a “bag of worms” appearance. Varicoceles are categorized as grade I (palpable only during the Valsalva maneuver), grade II (palpable without the Valsalva maneuver), or grade III (visible without the need for palpation) based on physical examination results [3]. Varicoceles that are found during a physical examination are considered clinically important. Routine radiological imaging is not required to diagnose subclinical or clinical varicoceles clearly detected during a physical examination; however, scrotal Doppler ultrasonography (USG) is indicated in patients with questionable scrotal physical examination results. Testicular volume measurements, the presence of many dilated spermatic vessels, and the demonstration of reverse flow are indicators of a varicocele, as identified by color Doppler USG. The European Society of Urogenital Radiology Scrotal and Penile Imaging Working Group (ESUR-SPIWG) has stated that a varicocele can be diagnosed with a maximal diameter of ≥3 mm [4,5], and reflux longer than 2 s during the Valsalva maneuver while the patient is upright is considered abnormal [4,6].

As the indications for varicocelectomy in adolescents with varicoceles are not clear, it is challenging to apply a standard approach when treating these patients. Differences in the size of the right and left testis, scrotal pain, hormone levels, and, if possible, semen analysis parameters are considered important factors to take into account when deciding whether to perform a varicocelectomy [7]. A semen analysis should be performed for adult patients with a varicocele; however, it is not possible to perform a semen analysis for all pediatric patients with a varicocele because the first ejaculation usually occurs 1.5 years after the onset of puberty [8]. Hence, semen analysis may be performed for patients aged ≥17 years and it is not appropriate for younger patients due to ethical concerns [9]. Varicoceles in adolescents can be managed with radiological techniques, surgery, or observation with follow-up [10].

Despite some technical difficulties associated with the technique, the subinguinal approach has gained popularity and is now the primary approach used in varicocelectomies. It can be performed under magnification with loops (2.5× to 4.5×) or microscopes (8× to 15×). While this method is the gold standard for treating adults, there are limited data available on the successful use of this microsurgical subinguinal technique for treating adolescents [11]. Nevertheless, performing subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomies in pediatric patients is increasing in popularity [11]. The key challenges associated with using this method in pediatric patients are the detection and preservation of the testicular artery.

In recent years, studies have shown that there are more positive results and fewer problems when intraoperative Doppler USG is used [12]. Currently, there is limited research available on the use of intraoperative microvascular Doppler ultrasonography (MDU) for subinguinal microsurgical varicocele repair in children, who have smaller vessel diameters and lower blood pressure than adults. Thus, we report on the use of intraoperative MDU for the identification and preservation of spermatic arteries during microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy in children.

2. Materials and methods

This study was planned after approval was obtained from the Gazi University Ethics Committee (04.09.2023-689). Nineteen patients who were referred to our clinic between January 2021 and July 2023 due to the presence of a clinically palpable varicocele were included in this study. Each patient’s age, varicocele-related symptoms, physical examination findings (e.g., varicocele side, testicular volume), and preoperative scrotal color Doppler USG results in the supine and standing positions were evaluated. Scrotal pain was evaluated using the patient’s/their family’s anamnesis; no pain scales were used to evaluate scrotal pain. Semen analysis was performed for two patients aged over 17 years after obtaining consent for sperm analysis from the patients and their families. The patients underwent subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy with intraoperative MDU (20 MHz vascular Doppler system, Vascular Technology Inc., Nashua, NH, USA). The intraoperative findings, postoperative complications, and outcomes were evaluated.

2.1. Subinguinal microsurgery and microvascular Doppler usage

Every operation was performed with general anesthesia. A 2–3 cm subinguinal incision was made 1 cm below the external inguinal ring. The spermatic cord and components were released upon reaching the outer ring. A Penrose drain was introduced via the incision and extracted. Any external spermatic veins found were tied up at the base of the groin using 4/0 silk sutures. After the exterior spermatic fascia was dissected, the internal spermatic vessels were examined, dissected, and ligated with the use of a surgical microscope (S88, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) at 10× magnification. A Zeiss operating microscope was used for the dissection, which was performed at 8× to 15× magnification. Testicular arterial blood flow was precisely identified by meticulously dissecting the spermatic cord. A warm sterile saline solution was used to aid the identification of the visual arterial pulse. Minor bleeding was controlled using microsurgical bipolar coagulation. After all the arteries in the cord were identified and preserved, the internal spermatic veins were ligated with 4/0 silk sutures and separated. All the identified lymphatic structures were carefully preserved. These appeared as transparent tubular structures under the microscope, as shown in the video provided (Supplemental video). As experience with the use of a microscope increases, it becomes easier to distinguish vascular and lymphatic structures. For the intraoperative MDU, a 20-MHz MVD transceiver with a 0.5/1.5-mm-diameter probe was systematically used to scan all the spermatic vessels prior to ligation, irrespective of their visual appearance and pulsation. If a pulse (whistle) was heard when an artery was touched, it was identified and preserved.

The procedure was continued until pulsation of the testicular artery was obtained in all cases and the number of arteries at this level was recorded. Unintentional damage during the procedure, an inability to recognize an artery, any accidental arterial ligations, any injuries, and the duration of the surgery were documented (Supplemental video).

3. Results

The patients were aged between 11 and 18 years (mean age: 15.2 years). The varicocele was on the left side in all cases. After a physical examination, 13 patients were diagnosed with grade III varicocele and six patients were diagnosed with grade II varicocele. USG findings showed that in 10 patients, the testicular volume on the varicocele side was 20% or 2 mL less than the testicular volume on the opposite side.

The indications for varicocelectomy were testicular hypotrophy in 10 patients and scrotal discomfort or fullness in nine patients. Testicular hypotrophy was detected by the parents in three patients and during routine physical examination in seven patients. Parents stated that when they checked their child’s testicles due to complaints about their child’s testicles, they noticed that the left-side testicle was small.

During the surgical procedures, testicular artery pulsation was visible in only five patients when a surgical microscope was used to detect pulsation. However, arterial pulsation was detected in all cases when the MDU device was used. In addition, a single testicular artery was found in 16 patients, and two arteries were detected in three patients when the MDU device was used (Table). In one case, it was not possible to visually distinguish whether a vascular structure was an artery or a vein. In this case, the vascular structure was determined to be an artery using MDU.

In each case, two to three lymphatic channels were identified and maintained. In five patients, external spermatic veins were identified and ligated (26.3%). The number of internal spermatic veins that were ligated varied from six to nine (average: 7.5 vessels). The average skin-to-skin surgery time was 56 min (range: 40–70 min). The average postoperative follow-up period was 11.5 months (range: 2–30 months). No testicular atrophy, wound site infection, postoperative hydrocele, recurrence, or epididymitis was recorded during the follow-up period (Table). Over the 1-year follow-up period, six of the 10 patients who had testicular hypotrophy demonstrated catch-up growth.

4. Discussion

Microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy has become a popular alternative as magnification permits all dilated veins to be recognized and ligated and the arteries and lymphatics in the pampiniform plexus to be preserved. Hydrocele formation has been found to occur in 1%–24%, 3%–32%, 2%–12%, 0%–5%, and 0%–3% of cases treated with retroperitoneal, macroscopic inguinal, laparoscopic, radiological, and microsurgical techniques, respectively. Recurrence has been recorded in 0%–18%, 12%–15%, 1%–15%, 15%–25%, and 0%–3% of cases treated with retroperitoneal, macroscopic inguinal, laparoscopic, radiological, and microsurgical techniques, respectively. Reoperation has been required in 4%–8%, 3.4%, 2%–4%, 5%–9.9%, and 0%–0.01% of cases treated with retroperitoneal, macroscopic inguinal, laparoscopic, radiological, and microsurgical techniques, respectively [2].

Varicoceles occur in approximately 15% of males in general; however, the frequency can reach 35% in situations of primary infertility and 75% in situations of secondary infertility. Infertility, chronic discomfort, and testicular hypotrophy in children and teenagers are the major reasons for performing surgery to correct varicoceles. Laparoscopic repair, microsurgical repair via groin or subinguinal incision, and classic inguinal (Ivanissevich) or high retroperitoneal (Palomo) techniques are the surgical alternatives for varicocele correction [13,14]. There are benefits and drawbacks associated with each of these approaches and the results of several studies have been conflicting [15]. Repairing a varicocele might result in hydrocele creation, recurrence, a permanent varicocele, or, in rare cases, testicular atrophy.

Microsurgical varicocelectomy (MIV) is the most commonly used surgical method for treating varicoceles in adults because of its high success rate and low risk of complications. It is also frequently performed for pediatric patients [13,16]. In a study by Carbone and Merhoff, among 139 adult men who underwent microsurgical varicocele ligation, only one had varicocele recurrence (0.7%) and only four had complications (2.9%). Hydrocele formation, the most frequent complication following nonmicrosurgical varicocele ligation (reported rates: 5.4%–7.2%), did not occur in any of the patients [17]. It has also been reported that hydroceles can develop even when the 10% Palomo method is used [18,19].

Without magnification, the risk of recurrence after inguinal varicocelectomy is 15%–16%, and the inadvertent closure of the testicular lymphatic vessels during surgery increases the risk of postoperative hydrocele by 10% [20]. Similarly, in laparoscopic varicocele repair, recurrence rates of 2.2%–25% have been reported, as well as a hydrocele formation rate of 12.5% [18,21].

Performing MIV in children is emerging as a current trend, and Yaman et al. successfully employed this method in adolescents and children. In their study that included 92 children, no hydrocele formation was observed, while one case of recurrence was reported [18]. In contrast, Schiff et al. used a subinguinal microsurgical approach and reported no recurrence and one persistent hydrocele among 74 children [22]. Additionally, Choi et al. reported a recurrence rate of 20% in 25 patients when a microsurgical approach was utilized to ligate gubernacular veins and a rate of only 6.1% (2 out of 33 patients) when the same approach was utilized without inducing testicular torsion. They also reported that no hydrocele formation or atrophy was observed in any of the 58 patients following varicocele repair [13]. Although our study included only a limited number of patients (n = 19) who underwent subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy with the use of MDU, no recurrence, hydrocele formation, or testicular atrophy were observed.

Multiple branches of the testicular artery are detected in the subinguinal region in up to 40% of cases during MSV [23–26]. Jarow et al. [25] reported finding multiple testicular artery branches in 81% of their histological analyses. Given the reported presence of these branches, it is believed that the unintentional ligation of tiny (secondary) internal testicular artery branches occurs more often than is officially recorded. Cocuzza et al. [26] reported that the incidence of unintentional arterial ligation was 1.1% in adult patients in the absence of Doppler guidance. Since these ligations may negatively impact spermatogenic recovery or an increase in fertility, every attempt should be made to avoid inadvertent arterial ligations during varicocelectomy.

Factors such as small vessel size, aggressive manipulation of vessels during dissection, difficulty in identifying arterial pulsations leading to spasms, and vessels being buried near or beneath complex vessel branches could contribute to arterial injury [27]. According to Grober et al. [24], improvement in semen characteristics does not correlate with the number of preserved arteries following varicocele surgery. As such, the preservation of a single testicular artery does not guarantee the maintenance or even the optimization of testicular function. In addition, according to available data, there appears to be no correlation between preoperative characteristics and the number of testicular arteries found following surgery.

Thus, to guarantee the greatest possible preservation of arterial blood flow to the testicles, the most recent technologies should be utilized in varicocele surgery, such as optical magnification, advanced microsurgical tools and techniques, and vascular Doppler USG. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that microsurgical varicocelectomy produces better results in terms of the surviving vessel stumps and the overall motility and concentration of sperm [28]. In the study by Cocuzza et al., which was conducted with adult patients, it was also emphasized that MDU guidance allowed for the ligation of more spermatogenic vessels [26].

Although our study had a relatively short follow-up period, growth was detected in 60% (6 out of 10) of patients with testicular hypotrophy. Sinanoglu et al. stated that catch-up growth started from the ninth postoperative month and continued until the 36th postoperative month [29]. In another study, testicular growth began within 12 months after varicocelectomy in adolescents aged between 15 and 19 years [30]. Catch-up growth rates of 73%–90% have been reported in some series [31,32].

Due to the limited use and reliability of sperm analysis in children and adolescents for varicocele follow-up and treatment and considering the occurrence of catch-up growth following testicular repair, we recommend that all the most recently developed and available equipment be used for treating varicoceles.

The limitations of this study include its nonprospective design, its small patient sample size, and the lack of consolidation of the results due to the surgeries being performed by multiple surgeons. Therefore, this study should be supported in the future, either with more data from the same center or with more patients from multiple centers. Despite these limitations, this pioneering study on the use of MDU during subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy has achieved successful outcomes.

5. Conclusion

Children undergoing subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy benefit from the use of MDU; it has been shown to reduce the risk of complications, including hydrocele formation and varicocele recurrence. However, further research is needed to explore the use of MDU in both adults and children undergoing subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy and to determine its benefits and drawbacks and how it compares to other methods.

Supplementary Information

Table Characteristics of 19 pediatric patients with left varicocele.

Grade of varicocele (grade/patients)	III/13 II/6	
Testicular hypotrophy	10	
Scrotal discomfort or fullness	9	
Number of spermatic arteries (n/patients)	1/16 2/3	
Number of ligated spermatic veins (number (range))	7.5 (6–9)	
Number of external spermatic veins	5 (26.3%)	
Recurrence/hydrocele/testicular atrophy	0	
Catch-up growth phenomenon (n/%)	6/60%	
Mean follow-up, months (range)	11.5 (2–30)	

Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval: This study was planned after obtaining approval from the Gazi University Ethics Committee (04.09.2023-689).

Supplemental video: Supplemental video demonstrates the use of intraoperative microvascular Doppler during subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy and is available at the following link: https://aperta.ulakbim.gov.tr/record/273833
==== Refs
References

1 Zundel S Szavay P Stanasel I Management of adolescent varicocele Seminars in Pediatric Surgert 2021 30 4 151084 10.1016/j.sempedsurg.2021.151084
2 Çayan S Bozlu M Akbay E Update on the novel management and future paternity situation in adolescents with varicocele Turkish Journal of Urology 2017 43 3 241 246 10.5152/tud.2017.01033 28861292
3 Dubin L Amelar RD Varicocele size and results of varicocelectomy in selected subfertile men with varicocele Fertility and Sterility 1970 21 8 606 609 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)37684-1 5433164
4 Freeman S Bertolotto M Richenberg J Belfield J Dogra V Ultrasound evaluation of varicoceles: guidelines and recommendations of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology Scrotal and Penile Imaging Working Group (ESUR-SPIWG) for detection, classification, and grading European Radiology 2020 30 1 11 25 10.1007/s00330-019-06280-y 31332561
5 Bertolotto M Freeman S Richenberg J Belfield J Dogra V Ultrasound evaluation of varicoceles: systematic literature review and rationale of the ESUR-SPIWG Guidelines and Recommendations Journal of Ultrasound 2020 23 4 487 507 10.1007/s40477-020-00509-z 32720266
6 Mohammed A Chinegwundoh F Testicular varicocele: an overview Urologia Internationals 2009 82 4 373 379 10.1159/000218523
7 Cho PS Yu RN Paltiel HJ Migliozzi MA Li X Clinical outcome of pediatric and young adult subclinical varicoceles: a single-institution experience Asian Journal of Andrology 2021 23 6 611 615 10.4103/aja.aja_22_21 33885004
8 Dabaja AA Wosnitzer MS Bolyakov A Schlegel PN Paduch DA When to ask male adolescents to provide semen sample for fertility preservation? Translational Andrology and Urology 2014 3 1 2 8 10.3978/j.issn.2223-4683.2014.02.01 26813354
9 Paduch DA Niedzielski J Semen analysis in young men with varicocele: preliminary study The Journal of Urology 1996 156 2S 788 790 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65816-6 8683784
10 Chiba K Ramasamy R Lamb DJ Lipshultz LI The varicocele: diagnostic dilemmas, therapeutic challenges and future perspectives Asian Journal of Andrology 2016 18 2 276 281 10.4103/1008-682X.167724 26698233
11 Macey MR Owen RC Ross SS Coward RM Best practice in the diagnosis and treatment of varicocele in children and adolescents Therapeutic Advances in Urology Urol 2018 10 9 273 282 10.1177/1756287218783900
12 Guo L Sun W Shao G Song H Ge N Outcomes of microscopic subinguinal varicocelectomy with and without the assistance of Doppler ultrasound: a randomized clinical trial Urology 2015 86 5 922 928 10.1016/j.urology.2015.08.002 26278823
13 Choi CI Park KC Lee TH Hong YK Recurrence rates in pediatric patients undergoing microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy with and without testicular delivery Journal of Pediatric Surgery 2017 52 9 1507 1510 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2016.12.011 28063682
14 Clarke BG Incidence of varicocele in normal men and among men of different ages Journal of the American Medical Association 1966 198 10 1121 1122 10.1001/jama.1966.03110230137039 5953394
15 Mirilas P Mentessidou A Microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy in children, adolescents, and adults: surgical anatomy and anatomically justified technique Journal of Andrology 2012 33 3 338 349 10.2164/jandrol.111.013052 21835913
16 Al-Kandari AM Shabaan H Ibrahim HM Elshebiny YH Shokeir AA Comparison of outcomes of different varicocelectomy techniques: open inguinal, laparoscopic, and subinguinal microscopic varicocelectomy: a randomized clinical trial Urology 2007 69 3 417 420 10.1016/j.urology.2007.01.057 17382134
17 Carbone DJ Merhoff V Jr Complication rate of microsurgical varicocele ligation without delivery of the testis Archives of Andrology 2003 49 3 201 214 10.1080/01485010390196779 12746098
18 Yaman O Soygur T Zumrutbas AE Resorlu B Results of microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy in children and adolescents Urology 2006 68 2 410 412 10.1016/j.urology.2006.02.022 16904464
19 Misseri R Gershbein AB Horowitz M Glassberg KI The adolescent varicocele. II: the incidence of hydrocele and delayed recurrent varicocele after varicocelectomy in a long-term follow-up British Journal of Urology International 2001 87 6 494 488 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.00110.x
20 Pintus C Rodriguez Matas MJ Manzoni C Nanni L Perrelli L Varicocele in pediatric patients: comparative assessment of different therapeutic approaches Urology 2001 57 1 154 157 10.1016/s0090-4295(00)00859-1
21 Koyle MA Oottamasathien S Barqawi A Rajimwale A Furness PD Laparoscopic Palomo varicocele ligation in children and adolescents: results of 103 cases The Journal of Urology 2004 172 4 Part 2 1749 1752 ; discussion 1752. 10.1097/01.ju.0000138676.68054.67 15371805
22 Schiff J Kelly C Goldstein M Schlegel P Poppas D Managing varicoceles in children: results with microsurgical varicocelectomy British Journal of Urology International 2005 95 3 399 402 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05308.x
23 Hopps CV Lemer ML Schlegel PN Goldstein M Intraoperative varicocele anatomy: a microscopic study of the inguinal versus subinguinal approach The Journal of Urology 2003 170 6 2366 2370 10.1097/01.ju.0000097400.67715.f8 14634418
24 Grober ED O’brien J Jarvi KA Zini A Preservation of testicular arteries during subinguinal microsurgical varicocelectomy: clinical considerations Journal of Andrology 2004 25 5 740 743 10.1002/j.1939-4640.2004.tb02849.x 15292104
25 Jarow JP Ogle A Kaspar J Hopkins M Testicular artery ramification within the inguinal canal The Journal of Urology 1992 147 5 1290 1292 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)37545-6 1569671
26 Cocuzza M Pagani R Coelho R Srougi M Hallak J The systematic use of intraoperative vascular Doppler ultrasound during microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy improves precise identification and preservation of testicular blood supply Fertility and Sterility 2010 93 7 2396 2399 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.01.088 19268931
27 Chan PTK Wright EJ Goldstein M Incidence and postoperative outcomes of accidental ligation of the testicular artery during microsurgical varicocelectomy The Journal of Urology 2005 173 2 482 484 10.1097/01.ju.0000148942.61914.2e 15643221
28 Belani JS Yan Y Naughton CK Does varicocele grade predict vein number and size at microsurgical subinguinal repair? Urology 2004 64 1 137 139 10.1016/j.urology.2004.02.006 15245951
29 Sinanoglu O Eyyupoglu SE Ekici S Ipsilateral testicular catch-up growth rate following microsurgical inguinal adolescent varicocelectomy The Scientific World Journal 2012 2012 356374 10.1100/2012/356374 22919305
30 Moursy EES ElDahshoury MZ Hussein MM Mourad MZ Badawy AA Dilemma of adolescent varicocele: long-term outcome in patients managed surgically and in patients managed expectantly Journal of Pediatric Urology 2013 9 6 Part B 1018 1022 10.1016/j.jpurol.2013.01.017 23523423
31 Zampieri N Mantovani A Ottolenghi A Camoglio FS Testicular catch-up growth after varicocelectomy: does surgical technique make a difference? Urology 2009 73 2 289 292 10.1016/j.urology.2008.07.039 18817958
