INTRODUCTION: Spleen injury appears in 10% to 30% of abdominal trauma patients. Mortality among the patients in the last 20 years remains high (6% to 7%) and shows no tendency to decline. Nowadays nonoperative management is widely accepted management of patients with low-grade spleen injury, whereas management of patients with high-grade spleen injury (III and higher) is not so obvious. There are 3 methods exist in treatment of such patients: conservative (with or without angioembolization), spleen-preserving operations, and splenectomy. Today laparoscopic splenectomy is not a widely used operation and only few studies reported about successful use of laparoscopic splenectomy in patients with spleen injury.The aim of the study was to determine indications and contraindications for laparoscopic splenectomy in abdominal trauma patients and to analyze results of the operations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study involved 42 patients with spleen injury grade III who were admitted in our institute in the years of 2010 to 2014. The patients were divided in 2 groups. Laparoscopic splenectomy was performed in 23 patients (group I) and "traditional" splenectomy was carried out in 19 patients (group II). There was no difference in the demographic data and trauma severity between the 2 groups. Noninvasive investigations, such as laboratory investigations, serial abdominal ultrasound examinations, x-ray in multiple views, and computed tomography had been performed before the decision about necessity of an operation was made. RESULTS: Patients after laparoscopic operations had better recovering conditions compared with patients with the same injury after "traditional" splenectomy. Neither surgery-related complications nor mortalities were registered in both groups. Laparoscopic splenectomy was more time-consuming operation than "traditional" splenectomy. We suggest that as experience of laparoscopic splenectomy is gained the operation time will be reduced. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic splenectomy is a safe feasible operation in patients with spleen injury. The operation is indicated in patients with spleen laceration >3 cm of parenchymal depth with moderate continuing bleeding or expanding hematoma and contraindicated in patients with hemodynamic instability and high bleeding rate (>500 mL/h on serial ultrasound examinations).
INTRODUCTION: Spleen injury appears in 10% to 30% of abdominal traumapatients. Mortality among the patients in the last 20 years remains high (6% to 7%) and shows no tendency to decline. Nowadays nonoperative management is widely accepted management of patients with low-grade spleen injury, whereas management of patients with high-grade spleen injury (III and higher) is not so obvious. There are 3 methods exist in treatment of such patients: conservative (with or without angioembolization), spleen-preserving operations, and splenectomy. Today laparoscopic splenectomy is not a widely used operation and only few studies reported about successful use of laparoscopic splenectomy in patients with spleen injury.The aim of the study was to determine indications and contraindications for laparoscopic splenectomy in abdominal traumapatients and to analyze results of the operations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study involved 42 patients with spleen injury grade III who were admitted in our institute in the years of 2010 to 2014. The patients were divided in 2 groups. Laparoscopic splenectomy was performed in 23 patients (group I) and "traditional" splenectomy was carried out in 19 patients (group II). There was no difference in the demographic data and trauma severity between the 2 groups. Noninvasive investigations, such as laboratory investigations, serial abdominal ultrasound examinations, x-ray in multiple views, and computed tomography had been performed before the decision about necessity of an operation was made. RESULTS:Patients after laparoscopic operations had better recovering conditions compared with patients with the same injury after "traditional" splenectomy. Neither surgery-related complications nor mortalities were registered in both groups. Laparoscopic splenectomy was more time-consuming operation than "traditional" splenectomy. We suggest that as experience of laparoscopic splenectomy is gained the operation time will be reduced. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic splenectomy is a safe feasible operation in patients with spleen injury. The operation is indicated in patients with spleen laceration >3 cm of parenchymal depth with moderate continuing bleeding or expanding hematoma and contraindicated in patients with hemodynamic instability and high bleeding rate (>500 mL/h on serial ultrasound examinations).