腹腔镜脾切除及贲门周围血管离断术治疗门静脉高压症的疗效评价

目的比较门静脉高压症病人行腹腔镜和开腹脾切除及贲门周围血管离断术的临床效果,评估腹腔镜手术的安全性及有效性。方法回顾性分析2010年1月至2014年5月开展的腹腔镜脾切除及贲门周围血管离断术（laparoscopic splenectomy splenectomy plus pericardial devascular—ization,18）103例病人和开腹脾切除及贲门周围血管离断术（open splenectomy plus perieardial devas—cularization,0S）110例病人的临床资料。结果两组病人手术均获得成功,无围手术期死亡,术后均康复出院,术后随访半年内无明显并发症。LS组中转开腹2例（中转率为1．9％）。LS组的平均手术时间长于OS组[（334．2±41．2）rain与（241．7±49．1）min,P=0．027];而LS组与OS组比较,术中出血量[（793．3±113．2）ml与（914．5±89．1）ml,P=0．009]、术后腹腔总引流量[（834．1±95．4）ml与（1008．1±126．2）ml,P=0．016]均明显减少,术后排气时间E（42．7±9．3）h与（56．3±7．1）h,P=0．01]、术后住院时间[（7．5±0．9）d与（8．9±0．9）d,P=0．043]明显缩短,术后并发症发生率差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论门静脉高压症病人行腹腔镜脾切除及贲门周围血管离断术安全有效,比传统开腹手术具有微创的优势。     

手助腹腔镜与开腹巨脾切除术的临床对比研究

目的对比手助腹腔镜与开腹手术治疗巨脾症的临床疗效。方法 2006年8月～2011年6月,将40例巨脾按患者意愿分成2组各20例,分别进行手助腹腔镜脾切除术(hand-assisted laparoscopic splenectomy,HALS)和传统开腹脾切除术(open splenectomy,OS),比较两组的手术时间、术中出血量、术后肛门排气时间、术后并发症发生率及术后住院时间等。结果 20例HALS组手术均获得成功,无中转开腹。与OS组相比,HALS组手术时间长[(110.9±37.2)min vs.(80.2±20.7)min,t=3.225,P=0.003],术中出血量少[(205.2±70.7)ml vs.(390.7±175.1)ml,t=-4.393,P=0.000],术后肛门排气早[(1.8±0.6)d vs.(2.4±0.9)d,t=-2.481,P=0.018],术后住院时间短[(8.9±1.2)d vs.(10.9±1.8)d,t=-4.134,P=0.000],术后并发症发生率差异无显著性[0(0例)vs.5.0%(1例),P=1.000]。结论 相比开腹手术,手助腹腔镜巨脾切除术具有切口美观、创伤小、恢复快的优点,是一种安全可行的治疗巨脾症的手术方式。     

腹腔镜巨脾切除术的临床疗效分析

目的:探讨腹腔镜巨脾切除术的安全性、可行性、手术注意事项及并发症的防治。方法:2008年5月31日至2014年10月9日施行腹腔镜脾切除术77例,以脾脏的长径是否≥20 cm分为巨脾组(n=13)与非巨脾组(n=64)两组,并回顾同期进行的74例开腹巨脾切除术的临床资料,归为开腹组(n=74),对比三组的手术时间、术中出血量、术后恢复进食时间、术后住院时间及术后并发症发生率。结果:与非巨脾组相比,巨脾组手术时间长[(223.0±30.6)min vs.(171.9±14.2)min]、术中出血多[(360.0±57.9)ml vs.(130.8±26.2)ml]、术后住院时间长[(10.1±2.6)d vs.(7.6±0.9)d]。与开腹组相比,巨脾组术后恢复进食时间[(2.7±0.8)d vs.(4.1±0.4)d]及术后住院时间短[(10.1±2.6)d vs.(15.4±2.0)d]。结论:腹腔镜巨脾切除术是安全、可行的,并具有手术切口小、术后康复快、术后住院时间短等优点。     

腹腔镜脾切除术与开腹脾切除术的疗效观察

目的：比较腹腔镜脾切除术（LS）与开腹脾切除术（OS）的临床疗效。方法2011年7月至2013年7月,选择同期分别行腹腔镜脾切除术（腹腔镜组）和开腹脾切除术（开腹组）的患者,各12例。对比分析两组患者的临床资料,包括手术时间、术中出血量、禁食时间、术后切口疼痛评分、术后住院时间等。结果与开腹组相比,腹腔镜组患者的手术时间[（170±9.7）minvs（89±4.4）min,t=24.087]、术后禁食时间[（40±8.4）hvs（68±5.8）h,t=8.558]以及术后住院时间[（7.3±0.8）d vs（13.2±0.9）d,t=-15.122]更短,术中出血量更少[（94±4.7）ml vs（170±20.7）ml,t=-11.355],术后第1天切口疼痛评分[（3.1±0.8）分vs（5.5±0.5）分,t=8.813]和第3天评分[（1.2±0.4）分vs（2.7±0.5）分,t=8.115]明显优于开腹组,差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.01）。结论腹腔镜脾切除术具有创伤小、术后恢复快、并发症发生率低等特点,值得临床推广应用。     

腹腔镜下巨脾切除术24例分析

目的探讨腹腔镜巨脾切除术的临床可行性。方法对24例巨脾伴脾功能亢进或外伤性脾破裂行腹腔镜巨脾切除术患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析。结果 21例患者成功行腹腔镜巨脾切除术,3例患者中转开腹。手术时间为90～390min,平均（170±30）min,术中出血量为50～3500mL,平均（900±50）mL。术后胃肠功能恢复时间为20～72h,2～5d拔除引流管,术后住院5～12d,平均（7±2）d,无手术死亡患者。结论在具备熟练的腔镜和开腹脾外科技术、合适的手术路径、完善的手术器械的条件下,腹腔镜巨脾切除术可以在临床上安全的应用。     

手助腹腔镜脾切除与开腹脾切除治疗巨脾效果比较

比较手助腹腔镜脾切除与开腹脾切除治疗巨脾的效果。回顾性分析41例因巨脾行脾脏切除术的临床资料。手助腹腔镜脾切除术患者23例,开腹脾切除术患者18例。比较两组患者手术时间、术中出血量、术后平均住院时间、术后并发症发生率。结果显示,与开腹脾切除术相比,手助腹腔镜脾切除的手术时间长[(313+41.8)min vs(209+19.9)min,P=0.01]、术中出血量少[(324±54.8)ml vs(539±154.8)mL,P=0.01]、术后并发症少(P=0.004)、术后平均住院时间短[(6±1.2)d vs(9±1.4)d,P=0.01]。结果表明,与开腹脾切除术相比,手助腹腔镜脾切除的手术出血量少,术后并发症发生率低,术后住院时间更短,但手术时间长。     

急性阑尾炎肥胖患者腹腔镜与开腹手术的对比研究

目的：探讨肥胖的急性阑尾炎患者行腹腔镜手术的效果及优缺点。方法回顾性分析2010年1月～2013年12月80例手术治疗肥胖的急性阑尾炎患者的临床资料,体重指数28～40。开腹组38例,腹腔镜组42例。比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、止痛药物及抗生素应用、术后发热、术后并发症、住院时间及费用的差异。结果腹腔镜组2例中转开腹。2组手术时间差异无显著性（P＞0．05）。与开腹组比较,腹腔镜组术中出血少[（14．98±12．77） ml vs．（31．58±19．00） ml, t＝-4．550, P＝0．000],术后抗生素使用时间短[（2．7±1．0） d vs．（4．1±1．2） d, t＝-5．470, P＝0．000],术后需要止痛少[5．0％（2／40） vs．26．3％（10／38）,χ2＝6．802,P＝0．009],留置引流少[2．5％（1／40） vs．18．4％（7／38）,χ2＝5．367, P＝0．021],术后发热少[5．0％（2／40） vs．23．7％（9／38）,χ2＝5．616, P＝0．018],术后切口愈合不良少[5．0％（2／40） vs．21．1％（8／38）,χ2＝4．493, P＝0．034],住院时间短[（5．9±3．2） d vs．（8．7±4．1） d, t＝-3．345, P＝0．001],但住院费用高[（7800±396）元vs．（4914±434）元, t＝30．716, P＝0．000]。结论对于肥胖的阑尾炎患者,腹腔镜阑尾切除术具有手术创伤小、术后恢复快、疼痛轻、并发症少、住院时间短等优点,住院费用可以接受,是首选治疗方法。     

改良腹腔镜脾切除联合贲门周围血管离断术治疗肝硬化门静脉高压症的临床疗效

目的探讨改良腹腔镜脾切除联合贲门周围血管离断术治疗肝硬化门静脉高压症的安全性及其近期疗效。方法回顾性分析2010年1月至2013年2月扬州大学临床医学院收治的107例肝硬化门静脉高压症患者的临床资料。接受改良腹腔镜脾切除联合贲门周围血管离断术患者为改良腹腔镜组（37例）,开腹脾切除联合贲门周围血管离断术为开腹组（70例）,比较两组患者术中和术后情况。计量资料采用t检验或Mann—WhitneyU检验,计数资料采用,检验。结果改良腹腔镜组患者的中位手术时间为210min（185～245min）,明显长于开腹组的175min（150～190min）,两组比较,差异有统计学意义（Z=-4．624,P〈0．05）。改良腹腔镜组患者中位术中出血量为150ml（100～200m1）、术后第1天疼痛指数为2．5±0．9、术后进食欲望时间为（1．5±0．7）d、术后肛门排气时间为（2．4±1．0）d、术后下床活动时间为（2．7±0．7）d、术后住院时间为（10．5±2．2）d,均显著低于开腹组的300ml（188～400m1）、5．1±1．1、（2．8±0．6）d、（3．2±1．0）d、（5．9±0．9）d、（15．7±4．3）d,两组比较,差异有统计学意义（Z=-3．570,t=-12．546,-9．834,-3．635,-18．780,-8．350,P〈0．05）。改良腹腔镜组5例患者术后发生并发症,显著少于开腹组的25例（X2=5．913,P〈0．05）。结论改良腹腔镜脾切除联合贲门周围血管离断术治疗肝硬化门静脉高压症安全可行且疗效确切,其近期疗效明显优于开腹手术。     

全腹腔镜下二级脾蒂离断法原位巨脾切除术的临床研究

［摘要］ 目的 总结全腹腔镜下二级脾蒂离断法原位巨脾切除术的手术要点和临床体会。方法 回顾性分析2013年1月~2017年6月48例实施巨脾切除术的患者临床资料,根据手术方式分为观察组（全腹腔镜下二级脾蒂离断法原位巨脾切除）和开放组（开腹传统法）。比较2组患者手术时间、术中出血、留置腹腔引流管情况、术后拔除引流管时间、并发症及术后住院时间等指标。结果 48例患者均成功完成手术,其中观察组25例均成功在全腹腔镜下完成二级脾蒂离断法原位脾切除术,无中转开腹,观察组手术时间比开放组长（130.40±63.60 min vs 99.13±33.97 min,P=0.038）,术中出血量更少（75.20±50.67 mL vs 206.09±116.77 mL,P=0.000）,术后住院时间更短（8.24±2.20天vs 11.00±3.49天,P=0.002）;观察组留置腹腔引流管的例数更少,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）,但两组术后拔除引流管的时间相当;两组间脾窝积液、切口感染和发热两组差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）;而观察组术后胸腔积液少于开放组,其差异有统计学意义（P<0.05））;两组均无腹腔出血,腹腔感染,门静脉系统血栓,胰瘘,胃瘘,肝功能衰竭等并发症。术后随访6个月,患者无门静脉系统血栓及肝功能衰竭并发症,胸腔积液已吸收。结论 全腹腔镜下二级脾蒂离断法原位巨脾切除安全可靠,与开腹传统方法比较,术中出血更少,恢复更快。     

CT引导下胆囊穿刺置管引流术后择期LC治疗急性胆囊炎

[摘 要] 目的探讨CT引导下经皮经肝胆囊穿刺置管引流术（PTGBD）后择期腹腔镜胆囊切除术（LC）治疗急性胆囊炎的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2015 年3 月至2017 年2 月南通大学附属建湖医院普外科行LC术患者的临床资料。选择符合纳入标准的患者共52 例,按手术方法不同,分为PTGBD联合LC组（PTGBD+LC组,n=25）和急诊LC组（ELC组,n=27）两组,比较两组患者手术时间、术中失血量、腹腔引流时间、中转开腹率、胆囊大部切除率、术后住院时间及术后并发症发生率等指标。结果PTGBD+LC组与ELC组在手术时间[（45.7±7.3）min vs（74.5±8.2）min]、术中失血量[（32.4±7.2）mL vs（82.7±11）mL]、腹腔引流时间[（3.38±0.7）d vs（5.6±0.8）d]、中转开腹率（4.0% vs 29.6%）、胆囊大部切除率（0 vs 22.2%）、术后住院时间[（3.8±0.8）d vs（6.5±0.8）d]以及并发症发生率（4.0% vs 33.3%）方面均有统计学差异（P＜0.05）。结论PTGBD联合LC治疗急性胆囊炎效果确切,临床疗效整体优于急诊LC,值得在临床进一步推广应用。     

Laparoscopic versus open pediatric splenectomy for massive splenomegaly

Laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) has rapidly evolved into the technique of choice compared with open splenectomy (OS) because of the advantages of the minimally invasive approach. Splenomegaly increases the technical difficulties of LS. LS for massive splenomegaly has generally been found to fail in adults and children. With improvements in laparoscopic technique and accumulation of laparoscopic experience, however, concerns about completing the procedure in pediatric cases with even massive splenomegaly have been lowered. A retrospective review (April 1997-October 2009) of databases at 2 institutions identified 145 children undergoing splenectomy, 79 laparoscopic and 66 open. We defined splenic margin below the umbilicus or anteriorly extending over the midline as massive splenomegaly. By this definition, 22 cases of pediatric laparoscopic and 17 cases of open splenectomies for massive splenomegaly were performed. Perioperative and follow-up data of laparoscopic pediatric splenectomies were compared with those of open splenectomies, including operative time, bleeding, spleen size, complications, and hospital stay. There were no deaths, wound infections, or instances of pancreatitis. No accessory spleen was missed by laparoscopic; accessory spleens were missed in 2 patients in open splenectomies. The complication rate of laparoscopic versus open was 13.6% versus 41.2%. No subsequent surgery was necessary for dealing with complications both in laparoscopic and open series. Laparoscopic pediatric splenectomy for massive splenomegaly is a feasible, effective, and safe procedure and is associated with low morbidity and a short hospital stay.     

Outcome of laparoscopic splenectomy with preoperative splenic artery embolization for massive splenomegaly

Background  

Laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) has become a safe and feasible procedure for cases involving spleens of normal size. Only a few publications report on the outcome of LS with preoperative splenic artery embolization (SAE) for massive splenomegaly. The authors present their experience in patients with massive splenomegaly who underwent laparoscopic-assisted splenectomy (LAS) or hand-assisted laparoscopic splenectomy (HALS) following SAE.     

Laparoscopic splenectomy for massive splenomegaly

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) is the preferred operative approach for diseases involving normal-sized spleens. Our experience with laparoscopic splenectomy in the setting of massive splenomegaly is presented. METHODS: A prospective review of patients undergoing LS for massive splenomegaly was conducted. Massive splenomegaly (MS) in adults was defined as a craniocaudal length >or=17 cm or a morcellated weight >or=600 g. In children, spleens measuring fourfold larger than normal for age were considered massive. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients with MS were treated with LS. The most common primary diagnoses were lymphoma and leukemia. Mean splenic length was 20 cm (15 to 27 cm), with weights ranging from 600 to 4,750 g. Twelve patients with supermassive splenomegaly (length >22 cm) required a hand-assisted laparoscopic approach. There were no conversions to open surgery. Mean operating time was 171 minutes (90 to 369). Mean blood loss was 114 cc (<30 to 600 cc). Average length of stay was 2.3 days (1 to 16). Minor postoperative complications occurred in 3 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic splenectomy in the setting of splenomegaly is safe and appears to minimize perioperative morbidity. In patients with supermassive splenomegaly, a hand-assisted laparoscopic approach may be required.     

Trends in laparoscopic splenectomy for massive splenomegaly

HYPOTHESIS: During the past 10 years, expertise with minimally invasive techniques has grown, leading to an increase in successful laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) even in the setting of massive and supramassive spleens. DESIGN: Retrospective series of patients who underwent splenectomy from November 1, 1995, to August 31, 2005. SETTING: Academic tertiary care center. PATIENTS: Adult patients who underwent elective splenectomy as their primary procedure (n = 111). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographics, spleen size and weight, conversion from LS to open splenectomy, postoperative length of stay, and perioperative complications and mortality. Massive splenomegaly was defined as the spleen having a craniocaudal length greater than 17 cm or weight more than 600 g, and supramassive splenomegaly was defined as the spleen having a craniocaudal length greater than 22 cm or weight more than 1600 g. RESULTS: Eighty-five (77%) of the 111 patients underwent LS. Of these 85 patients, 25 (29%) had massive or supramassive spleens. These accounted for 40% of LSs performed in 2004 and 50% in 2005. Despite this increase in giant spleens, the conversion rate for massive or supramassive spleens has declined from 33% prior to 1999 to 0% in 2004 and 2005. Since January 2004 at our institution, all of the massive or supramassive spleens have been removed with a laparoscopic approach. Patients with massive or supramassive spleens who underwent LS had no reoperations for bleeding or deaths and had a significantly shorter postoperative length of stay (mean postoperative length of stay, 3.8 days for patients who underwent LS vs 9.0 days for patients who underwent open splenectomy; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite conflicting reports regarding the safety of LS for massive splenomegaly, our data indicate that with increasing institutional experience, the laparoscopic approach is safe, shortens the length of stay, and improves mortality.     

Effect of spleen size on splenectomy outcome

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) is gaining acceptance as an alternative to open splenectomy (OS). However, splenomegaly presents an obstacle to LS, and massive splenomegaly has been considered a contraindication. Analyses comparing the procedure with the open approach are lacking. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of spleen size on operative and immediate clinical outcome in a series of 105 LS compared with a series of 81 cases surgically treated by an open approach. METHODS: Between January 1990 and November 1998, 186 patients underwent a splenectomy for a wide range of splenic disorders. Of these patients, 105 were treated by laparoscopy (group I, LS; data prospectively recorded) and 81 were treated by an open approach (group II, OS analyzed retrospectively). Patients also were classified into three groups according to spleen weight: group A, <400 g; group B, 400-1000 g; and group C, >1000 g. Age, gender, operative time, perioperative transfusion, spleen weight, conversion rate, mode of spleen retrieval (bag or accessory incision), postoperative analgesia, length of stay, and morbidity were recorded in both main groups. RESULTS: Operative time was significantly longer for LS than for OS. However, LS morbidity, mortality, and postoperative stay were all lower at similar spleen weights. Spleens weighing more than 3,200 g required conversion to open surgery in all cases. When LS outcome for hematologic malignant diagnosis was compared with LS outcome for a benign diagnosis, malignancy did not increase conversion rate, morbidity, and transfusion, even though malignant spleens were larger and accessory incisions were required more frequently. Postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in malignant than in benign diagnosis (5 +/- 2.4 days vs. 4 +/- 2.3 days; p < 0. 05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with enlarged spleens, LS is feasible and followed by lower morbidity, transfusion rate, and shorter hospital stay than when the open approach is used. For the treatment of this subset of patients, who usually present with more severe hematologic diseases related to greater morbidity, LS presents potential advantages.     

Laparoscopic splenectomy: outcome and efficacy for massive and supramassive spleens

BackgroundMassive and supramassive splenomegaly are relative contraindications to pure laparoscopic splenectomy (LS).MethodsA retrospective review of adult patients was conducted for splenectomy occurring from 1999 to 2009. Massive and supramassive spleens were defined as craniocaudad length ≥ 17 cm or weight ≥ 600 g and craniocaudad length ≥ 22 cm or weight ≥ 1,600 g, respectively.ResultsLS was done for 22 and open splenectomy for 21 patients, of which 12 and 14 were supramassive. Spleen weight and craniocaudad length were comparable. LS was associated with lower blood loss (308 vs 400 mL, P = .24), shorter length of stay (3 vs 4.5 days, P = .054), and similar morbidity (17% vs 14%). Two reoperations and 1 death occurred with open splenectomy. Operative times were longer for LS (195 vs 105 min, P = .008), while the conversion rate was 25%.ConclusionsIn cases of massive and supramassive splenomegaly, better outcomes are accomplished with LS than open splenectomy, and are comparable to hand-assisted LS.     

Laparoscopy Splenectomy for Massive Splenomegaly

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study is aimed to evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) for massive splenomegaly in patients with hypersplenism secondary to portal hypertension and liver cirrhosis. Method: A retrospective study of adult patients was conducted for splenectomy occurring from January 2006 to December 2010. We have performed the surgical procedures of splenectomy in 80 patients who were suffering from splenomegaly or hypersplenism secondary to portal hypertension and liver cirrhosis, among whom 40 patients underwent LS and another 40 patients received open surgery (OS). Results: Among the patients who had undergone LS, 2 patients were converted to OS and the other 38 patients underwent complete LS. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and the length of stay in LS group and OS group were 100–200 min (mean: 150 ± 30 min) vs. 120–210 min (mean: 100 ± 30 min), 50–1,000 ml (mean: 150 ± 110 ml) vs. 60–900 ml (mean: 140 ± 50 ml) and 4–9 days (mean: 6.1 ± 2.2 days) vs. 8–14 days (mean: 11.3 ± 2.3 days), respectively. No deaths occurred in the two groups, and there are no significant differences between the two groups in terms of estimated blood loss, complications, length of stay, and operating time. Conclusion: LS for treatment of massive splenomegaly is a feasible, effective, and safe surgical technique. Hypersplenism secondary to portal hypertension and liver cirrhosis are not supposed to be considered absolute contraindications to LS.     

The ascendance of laparoscopic splenectomy

The application of laparoscopic techniques for abdominal procedures has been achieved with varying success. The general acceptance of laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) may be hindered by its infrequent performance and difficulty in manipulating the spleen. A retrospective review of splenectomies performed for primary splenic pathology was done to assess the role and outcome of LS. One hundred fifty LSs were performed from July 1995 through September 1999. Over that time period the proportion of LS performed increased steadily from 17 to 75 per cent of all splenectomies. The primary indications for splenectomy included immune thrombocytopenic purpura in 75 (50%), lymphoma/leukemia 36 (24%), and splenomegaly 19 (13%). There were 86 females and 64 males. Immediately before operation 36 patients (4%) had a platelet count <50,000/ mL, and 24 patients (16%) a hemoglobin <10 mg per cent. The mean operative time was 161 minutes with an average blood loss of 138 cm3 (<50-800). The mean morcellated weight of the entire group was 411 g (33-3300) indicating generally large splenic size. In the 37 patients with splenomegaly the mean weight was 735 g (293-3300). There were two conversions to open splenectomy. Two patients with hematologic malignancy, splenomegaly, and cytopenias died from overwhelming post-splenectomy sepsis (1.3%). Morbidity occurred in 14 (9%) with the most common complication being pancreatitis in seven (5%). The median length of postoperative stay was 2.4 days (range 1-5). In summary LS has rapidly replaced the open approach for nearly all elective splenectomies in adults and children. When performed with the patient in the lateral position it can be accomplished with minimal morbidity, even in complex patients, including those with splenomegaly.     

Laparoscopic splenectomy: a single center experience. Unusual cases and expanded inclusion criteria for laparoscopic approach

Laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) is nowadays considered as the gold standard for most hematological diseases where splenectomy is necessary, but many questions still remain. The aim of this study was to analyze our 5-years experiences consisting of 48 consecutive LS cases in order to assess the optimal approach and the feasibility of the procedure also in malignant diseases and unusual cases such as a primary spleen lymphoma, a big splenic artery aneurism, or a spleen infarct due to a huge pancreatic pseudo-cyst. Forty-eight consecutive patients underwent LS from January 2006 to January 2011 with at least 1-year follow-up. Clinical data and immediate outcome were retrospectively recorded; age, diagnosis, operation time, perioperative transfusion requirement, conversion rate, accessory incision, hospital stay, and complications were analyzed. We had 14 cases of malignant splenic disease, the most frequent malignant diagnosis was non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (12/14, 85.7 %). Splenomegaly (interpole diameter (ID) >20 cm) was observed in 12 cases (25 %) and massive splenomegaly (ID >25 cm) in 3 cases (6.25 %). Conversion to laparotomy occurred in two patients (4.16 %), both associated to uncontrollable bleeding in patients with splenomegaly. Mean operative time was 138 ± 22 min. Mean hospital stay was 4.5 days. Postoperative morbidity rate was 8.8 % for the benign group and 35.7 % in the malignant group. Mortality occurred in 1/48 patients (2.08 %), as a result of overwhelming post-splenectomy infection (OPSI). LS can be performed safely for malignant splenic disease and splenomegaly without any statistically significant increase of morbidity and mortality rate. Conversion rate is increased for massive splenomegaly. LS should be considered as the preferential approach even in patients with malignant disease, splenomegaly, or unusual cases. Massive splenomegaly should be considered as relative contraindication to LS even at experienced centers.     

Morbidity of hand-assisted laparoscopic splenectomy compared to conventional laparoscopic splenectomy: a 6-year review

Background

Laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) has several advantages over the open procedure but can be technically demanding when performed in patients with massive splenomegaly. We hypothesized that patients who undergo hand-assisted LS (HALS) may experience the benefits of LS while having their enlarged spleens removed safely.

Methods

We reviewed the charts of patients who underwent HALS or LS between January 2003 and June 2008. Evaluated parameters included intraoperative and early postoperative morbidity and mortality, conversion to open surgery, need for blood transfusion, length of postoperative hospital stay, patient demographics, diagnosis leading to splenectomy, splenic weight and number of postoperative days to resuming normal diet. Differences were analyzed while controlling for splenic weight and malignant diagnosis using multiple linear and logistic regression analysis.

Results

In all, 103 patients underwent splenectomy (23 HALS, 80 LS). Patients who had HALS were older and had larger spleens, and a greater proportion had malignant diagnoses. We observed no significant differences in morbidity, conversion to open surgery or need for blood transfusion. The mean length of postoperative stay, duration of surgery and days to resuming full diet were longer in the HALS group. No patients died. No group differences were significant after controlling for splenic weight and malignant diagnosis.

Conclusion

The morbidity associated with HALS is comparable to that with LS. The longer duration of surgery and hospital stay for HALS patients was likely related to greater splenic weight, older age and greater proportion of malignant diagnoses. Hand-assisted LS is a viable alternative to open surgery in patients with massive spleens.