Ji Cheng1, Kaixiong Tao2, Peiwu Yu3. 1. Department of General Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, No. 30 Gaotanyan Road, Shapingba District, Chongqing, 400038, China. 2. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No. 1277 Jiefang Avenue, Wuhan, 430022, Hubei Province, China. 3. Department of General Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, No. 30 Gaotanyan Road, Shapingba District, Chongqing, 400038, China. peiwuyuxnyy@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, whether laparoscopic or open splenectomy is a gold standard option for spleen abnormalities remains in controversy. There is in deficiency of academic evidence concerning the surgical efficacy and safety of both comparative managements. In order to surgically appraise the applied potentials of both approaches, we hence performed this comprehensive meta-analysis on the basis of 15-year literatures. METHODS: Via searching of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases, overall 37 original articles were eligibly incorporated into our meta-analysis and subdivided into six sections. In accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration protocol, all statistical procedures were mathematically conducted in a standard manner. Publication bias was additionally evaluated by funnel plot and Egger's test. RESULTS: Irrespective of the diversified splenic disorders, laparoscopic splenectomy was superior to open technique owing to its fewer estimated blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay as well as lower complication rate (P < 0.05). As for operative duration and perioperative mortality, a statistical similarity was observed amid both surgical measures (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Technically, laparoscopic splenectomy should be recommended as a prior remedy with its advantage of rapid recovery and minimally physical damage, in addition to its comparably surgical efficacy against that of open manipulation.
BACKGROUND: Currently, whether laparoscopic or open splenectomy is a gold standard option for spleen abnormalities remains in controversy. There is in deficiency of academic evidence concerning the surgical efficacy and safety of both comparative managements. In order to surgically appraise the applied potentials of both approaches, we hence performed this comprehensive meta-analysis on the basis of 15-year literatures. METHODS: Via searching of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases, overall 37 original articles were eligibly incorporated into our meta-analysis and subdivided into six sections. In accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration protocol, all statistical procedures were mathematically conducted in a standard manner. Publication bias was additionally evaluated by funnel plot and Egger's test. RESULTS: Irrespective of the diversified splenic disorders, laparoscopic splenectomy was superior to open technique owing to its fewer estimated blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay as well as lower complication rate (P < 0.05). As for operative duration and perioperative mortality, a statistical similarity was observed amid both surgical measures (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Technically, laparoscopic splenectomy should be recommended as a prior remedy with its advantage of rapid recovery and minimally physical damage, in addition to its comparably surgical efficacy against that of open manipulation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Laparoscopic splenectomy; Meta-analysis; Open splenectomy; Spleen
Authors: Sharadh Sampath; Adam T Meneghetti; John K MacFarlane; Nam H Nguyen; W Barrett Benny; Ormond N M Panton Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Jorge Montalvo; David Velazquez; Juan P Pantoja; Mauricio Sierra; Xavier López-Karpovitch; Miguel F Herrera Journal: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Date: 2014-06-06 Impact factor: 1.878
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: Liane S Feldman; Sebastian V Demyttenaere; Gerry N Polyhronopoulos; Gerald M Fried Journal: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 1.878
Authors: Faisal G Qureshi; Orkan Ergun; Vlad C Sandulache; Evan P Nadler; Henri R Ford; David J Hackam; Timothy D Kane Journal: JSLS Date: 2005 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.172