Catalin Vasilescu1, Oana Stanciulea, Stefan Tudor. 1. Department of General Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Fundeni Clinical Institute, 258 Fundeni Street, Bucharest, Romania. catvasilescu@gmail.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was designed to compare the laparoscopic subtotal splenectomy with the robotic approach in patients with hereditary spherocytosis. METHODS: Thirty-two consecutive subtotal splenectomies by minimal approach in patients with hereditary spherocytosis were analyzed (10 robotic vs. 22 laparoscopic subtotal splenectomies). RESULTS: A significant difference was found for the robotic approach regarding blood loss, vascular dissection duration, and splenic remnant size. Follow-up for 4-103 months was available. CONCLUSIONS: Subtotal splenectomy seems to be a suitable candidate for robotic surgery, requiring a delicate dissection of the splenic vessels and a correct intraoperative evaluation of the splenic remnant. Robotic subtotal splenectomy is comparable to laparoscopy in terms of hospital stay and complication. The main benefits are lower blood loss rate, vascular dissection time, and a better evaluation of the splenic remnant volume.
BACKGROUND: This study was designed to compare the laparoscopic subtotal splenectomy with the robotic approach in patients with hereditary spherocytosis. METHODS: Thirty-two consecutive subtotal splenectomies by minimal approach in patients with hereditary spherocytosis were analyzed (10 robotic vs. 22 laparoscopic subtotal splenectomies). RESULTS: A significant difference was found for the robotic approach regarding blood loss, vascular dissection duration, and splenic remnant size. Follow-up for 4-103 months was available. CONCLUSIONS: Subtotal splenectomy seems to be a suitable candidate for robotic surgery, requiring a delicate dissection of the splenic vessels and a correct intraoperative evaluation of the splenic remnant. Robotic subtotal splenectomy is comparable to laparoscopy in terms of hospital stay and complication. The main benefits are lower blood loss rate, vascular dissection time, and a better evaluation of the splenic remnant volume.
Authors: Jaime Landman; Kurt Kerbl; Jamil Rehman; Cassio Andreoni; Peter A Humphrey; William Collyer; Ephrem Olweny; Chandru Sundaram; Ralph V Clayman Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Johannes Bodner; Paolo Lucciarini; John Fish; Reinhold Kafka-Ritsch; Thomas Schmid Journal: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 1.878
Authors: Paula H B Bolton-Maggs; Elizabeth A Chalmers; Peter W Collins; Paul Harrison; Stephen Kitchen; Ri J Liesner; Adrian Minford; Andrew D Mumford; Liakat A Parapia; David J Perry; Steve P Watson; Jonathan T Wilde; Michael D Williams Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: G Tchernia; B Bader-Meunier; P Berterottiere; S Eber; J P Dommergues; F Gauthier Journal: Curr Opin Hematol Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 3.284
Authors: F Corcione; C Esposito; D Cuccurullo; A Settembre; N Miranda; F Amato; F Pirozzi; P Caiazzo Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2004-11-18 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Amir Szold; Roberto Bergamaschi; Ivo Broeders; Jenny Dankelman; Antonello Forgione; Thomas Langø; Andreas Melzer; Yoav Mintz; Salvador Morales-Conde; Michael Rhodes; Richard Satava; Chung-Ngai Tang; Ramon Vilallonga Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-11-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Francesco Esposito; Adele Noviello; Nicola Moles; Nicola Cantore; Mario Baiamonte; Enrico Coppola Bottazzi; Antonio Miro; Francesco Crafa Journal: Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg Date: 2018-05-30