Alexandre Balaphas1, Nicolas C Buchs2, Jeremy Meyer2, Monika E Hagen2, Philippe Morel2. 1. Division of Digestive and Transplantation Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland. alexandre.balaphas@hcuge.ch. 2. Division of Digestive and Transplantation Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Partial splenectomy (PS) is a spleen-preserving technique that is applied as a result of trauma, focal lesions or hematological conditions. Despite the improvement of laparoscopic techniques within the past several decades, minimally invasive PS has remained a marginal technique that has not been well evaluated. Our objective was to provide an update on the indications and the feasibility of this procedure. METHODS: The MEDLINE database (PubMed) was searched, and all relevant articles that involved a true minimally invasive PS (i.e., segmental or lobar devascularization of the spleen with parenchymal transection) were included. The search was conducted until the 31st of March 2014. Demographic data, operative indications, estimated blood losses, operative times, conversion rates and complications were extracted from the included articles and were summarized for discussion. RESULTS: Out of the 195 publications that were retrieved, 33 were included, which were mainly case reports and case series that represented a total of 187 patients. There were 37 men, 33 women and 117 patients of unknown gender. The mean age of the patients was ranged from 6 to 58 years. The mean total operative time was between 70 and 216 min for conventional laparoscopy and between 108 and 120 min for the robotic approach. For most studies, the mean estimated blood loss was minimal. The complication rate was 5.36% for conventional laparoscopy and 5.56% for the robotic approach. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of minimally invasive PS were favorable and comparable to those of the open technique according to the literature. This procedure may constitute an attractive alternative to the open technique for selected cases. Moreover, a robotic approach might be an interesting technical option, but additional research is needed before any definitive conclusions can be drawn.
BACKGROUND: Partial splenectomy (PS) is a spleen-preserving technique that is applied as a result of trauma, focal lesions or hematological conditions. Despite the improvement of laparoscopic techniques within the past several decades, minimally invasive PS has remained a marginal technique that has not been well evaluated. Our objective was to provide an update on the indications and the feasibility of this procedure. METHODS: The MEDLINE database (PubMed) was searched, and all relevant articles that involved a true minimally invasive PS (i.e., segmental or lobar devascularization of the spleen with parenchymal transection) were included. The search was conducted until the 31st of March 2014. Demographic data, operative indications, estimated blood losses, operative times, conversion rates and complications were extracted from the included articles and were summarized for discussion. RESULTS: Out of the 195 publications that were retrieved, 33 were included, which were mainly case reports and case series that represented a total of 187 patients. There were 37 men, 33 women and 117 patients of unknown gender. The mean age of the patients was ranged from 6 to 58 years. The mean total operative time was between 70 and 216 min for conventional laparoscopy and between 108 and 120 min for the robotic approach. For most studies, the mean estimated blood loss was minimal. The complication rate was 5.36% for conventional laparoscopy and 5.56% for the robotic approach. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of minimally invasive PS were favorable and comparable to those of the open technique according to the literature. This procedure may constitute an attractive alternative to the open technique for selected cases. Moreover, a robotic approach might be an interesting technical option, but additional research is needed before any definitive conclusions can be drawn.
Authors: Pier C Giulianotti; Nicolas C Buchs; Andrea Coratti; Fabio Sbrana; Antonella Lombardi; Luca Felicioni; Francesco M Bianco; Pietro Addeo Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2011-01-28 Impact factor: 1.466
Authors: X Jaïs; V Ioos; C Jardim; O Sitbon; F Parent; A Hamid; E Fadel; P Dartevelle; G Simonneau; M Humbert Journal: Thorax Date: 2005-08-05 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: P Czauderna; P Vajda; K Schaarschmidt; A Kalman; M Jainsch; A Engelis; K Lewicki; T Verebely; J Koltai; A Petersons; A B Pintér Journal: Eur J Pediatr Surg Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 2.191
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: B Habermalz; S Sauerland; G Decker; B Delaitre; J-F Gigot; E Leandros; K Lechner; M Rhodes; G Silecchia; A Szold; E Targarona; P Torelli; E Neugebauer Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-02-22 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: F J Tejero-Pintor; C Cuesta-De la Llave; M Rodriguez-Lopez; M Bailon-Cuadrado; D Pacheco-Sánchez Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 1.891
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