BACKGROUND: The current laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) procedure used for cirrhotic patients still has limitations. The aim of our study was to determine a standard according to the splenic size for hand-assisted LS (HALS) in patients with splenomegaly and hypersplenism due to cirrhosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospectively review of cirrhotic patients who underwent splenectomy between 2008 and 2011. All patients were divided into two groups: Group A (19 patients), in which patients' operations were conducted by HALS, and Group B (20 patients), in which patients were treated with LS. Then the patients in Group A were classified on the basis of the spleen size: massive splenomegaly (Group A1) and supramassive splenomegaly (Group A2). Likewise, so were patients in Group B: massive splenomegaly (Group B1) and supramassive splenomegaly (Group B2). Perioperative outcomes of these patients were compared. RESULTS: The comparison of HALS and LS based on spleen size demonstrated that in the massive splenomegaly groups, Group A1 and Group B1 had similar estimated blood loss and morbidity, and no transfusion was required in these patients. In the supramassive splenomegaly groups, compared with Group A2, Group B2 had longer operative time, more estimated blood loss, more patients requiring transfusion, and more complications that needed surgical intervention. However, no significant differences were observed in the requirement of analgesia, time of returning to oral intake, and length of hospitalization in these paired groups. CONCLUSIONS: In cirrhotic patients with supramassive splenomegaly, HALS should be considered because of its safety, feasibility, and effectiveness.
BACKGROUND: The current laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) procedure used for cirrhoticpatients still has limitations. The aim of our study was to determine a standard according to the splenic size for hand-assisted LS (HALS) in patients with splenomegaly and hypersplenism due to cirrhosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospectively review of cirrhoticpatients who underwent splenectomy between 2008 and 2011. All patients were divided into two groups: Group A (19 patients), in which patients' operations were conducted by HALS, and Group B (20 patients), in which patients were treated with LS. Then the patients in Group A were classified on the basis of the spleen size: massive splenomegaly (Group A1) and supramassive splenomegaly (Group A2). Likewise, so were patients in Group B: massive splenomegaly (Group B1) and supramassive splenomegaly (Group B2). Perioperative outcomes of these patients were compared. RESULTS: The comparison of HALS and LS based on spleen size demonstrated that in the massive splenomegaly groups, Group A1 and Group B1 had similar estimated blood loss and morbidity, and no transfusion was required in these patients. In the supramassive splenomegaly groups, compared with Group A2, Group B2 had longer operative time, more estimated blood loss, more patients requiring transfusion, and more complications that needed surgical intervention. However, no significant differences were observed in the requirement of analgesia, time of returning to oral intake, and length of hospitalization in these paired groups. CONCLUSIONS: In cirrhoticpatients with supramassive splenomegaly, HALS should be considered because of its safety, feasibility, and effectiveness.