Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Laparoscopic surgery of the spleen: state of the art

Laparoscopic surgery of the spleen: state of the art Introduction: Laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) offers superior visualization and access to the spleen and avoids the major laparotomy incision necessary in open splenectomy (OS). This review summarizes the current knowledge of laparoscopic techniques for splenectomy from the perspective of surgeons whose combined experience now totals 340 cases. Background and discussion: While LS has been applied across the spectrum of splenic diseases, it is most indicated in treatment of a benign hematologic condition with a normal or slightly enlarged spleen as seen in autoimmune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), autoimmune deficiency syndrome-related ITP, hemolytic anemia, or spherocytosis. Both anterior and lateral approaches have been used for LS. While benefits of the anterior approach include access to the splenic artery along the superior border of the pancreas within the lesser sac, thus securing vascular control early in the procedure, the lateral approach allows for improved exposure of and access to the splenic pedicle. Also, mechanics and sequence of dissection are enhanced and more intuitive to the surgeon using the lateral approach, and the tail of the pancreas is more easily identified. Potential perioperative complications of LS include hemorrhage, injury to the tail of the pancreas, and deep vein thrombosis. The most common criticisms facing LS are the potential for missed accessory spleens, longer operating time, and greater operating room costs compared to OS. However, while LS requires a longer operating time than OS, studies indicate shorter postoperative hospital stays for LS versus OS patients in comparable cases, which can, in turn, reduce the total hospital cost for the procedure. Conclusion: Although LS continues to pose certain technical challenges – such as management of the massive spleen, specimen extraction, and identification of remotely located accessory spleens – its advantages over OS in terms of faster postoperative recovery, shorter hospital stay, and equivalent or lower perioperative morbidity are now well established. Indications for LS and more laparoscopic spleen-conserving surgery are likely to broaden. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Springer Journals

Laparoscopic surgery of the spleen: state of the art

Download PDF
10 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/laparoscopic-surgery-of-the-spleen-state-of-the-art-PxTDSEB6QL

References (68)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 by Springer-Verlag
Subject
Medicine & Public Health; General Surgery; Abdominal Surgery; Cardiac Surgery; Thoracic Surgery; Traumatic Surgery; Vascular Surgery
ISSN
1435-2443
eISSN
1435-2451
DOI
10.1007/s004230100222
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Introduction: Laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) offers superior visualization and access to the spleen and avoids the major laparotomy incision necessary in open splenectomy (OS). This review summarizes the current knowledge of laparoscopic techniques for splenectomy from the perspective of surgeons whose combined experience now totals 340 cases. Background and discussion: While LS has been applied across the spectrum of splenic diseases, it is most indicated in treatment of a benign hematologic condition with a normal or slightly enlarged spleen as seen in autoimmune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), autoimmune deficiency syndrome-related ITP, hemolytic anemia, or spherocytosis. Both anterior and lateral approaches have been used for LS. While benefits of the anterior approach include access to the splenic artery along the superior border of the pancreas within the lesser sac, thus securing vascular control early in the procedure, the lateral approach allows for improved exposure of and access to the splenic pedicle. Also, mechanics and sequence of dissection are enhanced and more intuitive to the surgeon using the lateral approach, and the tail of the pancreas is more easily identified. Potential perioperative complications of LS include hemorrhage, injury to the tail of the pancreas, and deep vein thrombosis. The most common criticisms facing LS are the potential for missed accessory spleens, longer operating time, and greater operating room costs compared to OS. However, while LS requires a longer operating time than OS, studies indicate shorter postoperative hospital stays for LS versus OS patients in comparable cases, which can, in turn, reduce the total hospital cost for the procedure. Conclusion: Although LS continues to pose certain technical challenges – such as management of the massive spleen, specimen extraction, and identification of remotely located accessory spleens – its advantages over OS in terms of faster postoperative recovery, shorter hospital stay, and equivalent or lower perioperative morbidity are now well established. Indications for LS and more laparoscopic spleen-conserving surgery are likely to broaden.

Journal

Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery – Springer Journals

Published: Feb 27, 2014

There are no references for this article.