Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic ICG-fluorescence lymphatic-sparing palomo varicocelectomy: a comparative retrospective study of techniques and outcomes.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare techniques and outcomes of robotic-assisted varicocelectomy (RAV) and laparoscopic varicocelectomy (LV). METHODS: The medical records of 40 patients, who received RAV and LV over a 2-year period, were retrospectively analyzed. Palomo lymphatic-sparing varicocelectomy using ICG fluorescence was adopted in all cases. Three 5-mm trocars were placed in LV, whereas four ports, three 8-mm and one 5-mm, were placed in RAV. The spermatic vessels were ligated using clips in LV and ligatures in RAV. The two groups were compared regarding patient baseline and operative outcomes. RESULTS: All patients, with median age of 14 years (range 11-17), had left grade 3 varicocele according to Dubin-Amelar. All were symptomatic and 33/40 (82.5%) presented left testicular hypotrophy. All procedures were completed without conversion. The average operative time was significantly shorter in LV [20 min (range 11-30)] than in RAV [34.5 min (range 30-46)] (p = 0.001). No significant differences regarding analgesic requirement and hospitalization were observed (p = 0.55). At long-term follow-up (30 months), no complications occurred in both groups. The cosmetic outcome was significantly better in LV than RAV at 6-month and 12-month evaluations (p = 0.001). The total cost was significantly lower in LV (1.587,07 €) compared to RAV (5.650,31 €) (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: RAV can be safely and effectively performed in pediatric patients, with the same excellent outcomes as conventional laparoscopic procedure. Laparoscopy has the advantages of faster surgery, smaller instruments, better cosmesis and lower cost than robotics. To date, laparoscopy remains preferable to robotics to treat pediatric varicocele.

The quantified EEG characteristics of responders and non-responders to long-term treatment with atomoxetine in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorders.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study is to examine quantitative Electroencephalogram (QEEG) differences between ADHD patients that are responders and non-responders to long-term treatment with Atomoxetine at baseline and after 6 and 12months of treatment. Patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) received atomoxetine titrated, over 7days, from 0.5 to 1.2mg/kg/day. QEEG and Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham-IV Questionnaire (SNAP-IV) scores were recorded before treatment and after therapy. METHODS: Twenty minutes of eyes closed resting EEG was recorded from 19 electrodes referenced to linked earlobes. Full frequency and narrow band spectra of two minutes of artifact-free EEG were computed as well as source localization using Variable Resolution Electrical Tomography (VARETA). Abnormalities were identified using Z-spectra relative to normative values. RESULTS: Patients were classified as responders, non-responders and partial responders based upon the SNAP-IV findings. At baseline, the responders showed increased absolute power in alpha and delta in frontal and temporal regions, whereas, non-responders showed increased absolute power in all frequency bands that was widely distributed. With treatment responders' absolute power values moved toward normal values, whereas, non-responders remained at baseline values. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with increased power in the alpha band with no evidence of alterations in the beta or theta range, might be responders to treatment with atomoxetine. Increased power in the beta band coupled with increased alpha seems to be related to non-responders and one should consider atomoxetine withdrawal, especially if there is persistence of increased alpha and beta accompanied by an increase of theta.