Literature DB >> 25002249

Robotic splenectomy: what is the real benefit?

Dana-Elena Giza1, Stefan Tudor, Raluca Roxana Purnichescu-Purtan, Catalin Vasilescu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic approach to a difficult splenectomy requires a longer total operative time and is frequently associated with an increased risk of bleeding and a high conversion rate.
METHODS: A total of 418 elective splenectomies were registered in the Department of General Surgery and Liver Transplantation of Fundeni Clinical Institute between January 1995 and June 2012, of which 299 splenectomies (212 laparoscopic and 77 robotic) were performed by a single surgical team and retrospectively documented. The effect of the learning curve and the relative complexity of each type of procedure were analyzed using the Minimally Invasive Splenectomy Score, which further allowed categorizing the splenectomies as simple or difficult. Statistical analyses using the CUSUM algorithm of the intra- and postoperative parameters of the laparoscopic and robotic approaches, for both the simple and the difficult splenectomies, were performed.
RESULTS: The results of the statistical analyses clearly indicated that there was a learning curve effect for laparoscopic splenectomy but not for robotic splenectomy. When compared with the laparoscopic approach in difficult splenectomies, the robotic approach had a shorter total operative time (84.13 vs. 97.2 min), less blood loss (30.88 vs. 156.9 ml), and decreased risk of hemorrhagic complications during surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic splenectomy remains the approach of choice for simple splenectomies in the surgical treatment for common indications. The robotic system is particularly beneficial in difficult splenectomies (i.e., partial splenectomy, splenectomy in liver cirrhosis, splenic tumors, or malignant hemopathies).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25002249     DOI: 10.1007/s00268-014-2697-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


  28 in total

Review 1.  Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sergio Maeso; Mercedes Reza; Julio A Mayol; Juan A Blasco; Mercedes Guerra; Elena Andradas; María N Plana
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  Laparoscopic splenectomy with the da Vinci robot.

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

3.  [Laparoscopic splenectomy].

Authors:  C Vasilescu
Journal:  Chirurgia (Bucur)       Date:  2005 Nov-Dec

4.  [Splenectomy by the laparoscopic approach. Report of a case].

Authors:  B Delaitre; B Maignien
Journal:  Presse Med       Date:  1991 Dec 21-28       Impact factor: 1.228

Review 5.  Control charts, Cusum techniques and funnel plots. A review of methods for monitoring performance in healthcare.

Authors:  Luc Noyez
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2009-06-09

Review 6.  Hand-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic splenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Daohai Qian; Zhigang He; Jie Hua; Jian Gong; Shengping Lin; Zhenshun Song
Journal:  ANZ J Surg       Date:  2014-04-09       Impact factor: 1.872

7.  Laparoscopic splenectomy.

Authors:  J A Brodsky; F J Brody; R M Walsh; J A Malm; J L Ponsky
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-02-06       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Laparoscopic subtotal splenectomy in hereditary spherocytosis : to preserve the upper or the lower pole of the spleen?

Authors:  C Vasilescu; O Stanciulea; S Tudor; D Stanescu; A Colita; R Stoia; D Coriu; A Colita; C Arion
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-03-16       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Hand-assisted laparoscopic technique in the setting of complicated splenectomy: a 9-year experience.

Authors:  Xin Wang; Yongbin Li; Bing Peng
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 3.352

10.  Advantages and limits of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: preliminary experience.

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

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  An appraisal of the learning curve in robotic general surgery.

Authors:  Luise I M Pernar; Faith C Robertson; Ali Tavakkoli; Eric G Sheu; David C Brooks; Douglas S Smink
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-04-14       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic approach of Bai-Jiang-style vagus nerve-preserving splenectomy and azygoportal disconnection.

Authors:  Dou-Sheng Bai; Sheng-Jie Jin; Xiao-Xing Xiang; Jian-Jun Qian; Chi Zhang; Bao-Huan Zhou; Guo-Qing Jiang
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2022-01-07

3.  Intraoperative hemorrhage and increased spleen volume are risk factors for conversion to open surgery in patients undergoing elective robotic and laparoscopic splenectomy.

Authors:  Mehmet Aziret; Bülent Koyun; Kerem Karaman; Cenk Sunu; Alper Karacan; Volkan Öter; Fehmi Çelebi; Metin Ercan; Erdal Birol Bostancı
Journal:  Turk J Surg       Date:  2020-03-18

Review 4.  Laparoscopic Splenectomy and Azygoportal Disconnection: a Systematic Review.

Authors:  Guo-Qing Jiang; Dou-Sheng Bai; Ping Chen; Jian-Jun Qian; Sheng-Jie Jin
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2015 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.172

5.  Robotic splenectomy with ex vivo bench surgery and hemi-spleen autotransplant: the first report.

Authors:  Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti; Despoina Daskalaki; Luis F Gonzalez-Ciccarelli; Francesco M Bianco
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-08-11
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.