| Literature DB >> 27418925 |
Shoufei Jiao1, Hongxing Chen2, Youlong Wang2, Jiye Zhu1, Jingwang Tan2, Jie Gao1.
Abstract
Background. Both splenectomy (SP) and partial splenic embolization (PSE) are used to treat massive splenomegaly (MSM) secondary to hepatitis B-related liver cirrhosis (HB-LC). This retrospective case-control study was conducted to compare the effects of SP and PSE on these patients. Methods. From July 2004 to January 2012, patients with MSM secondary to HB-LC who underwent SP or PSE were 1 : 1 : 1 matched with similar nonsurgery patients, respectively. Intraoperative situation, hematological indices, liver function, HBV DNA level, HBeAg seroconversion rate, morbidity, and mortality at 6 months postoperatively were compared. Results. Operative time, estimated blood loss, blood transfusion rate, severe pain, postoperative stay, and portal vein thrombosis (PVT) rate in the PSE group were significantly superior to the SP group, although SP and PSE were similar in liver function improvement, HBV suppression, morbidity, and mortality at 6 months postoperatively, and SP even improved WBC and PLT counts higher than PSE. Conclusion. Both SP and PSE are effective in improving liver function, increasing WBC and PLT counts, and suppressing replication of HBV for MSM secondary to HB-LC. Although postoperative improvement in WBC and PLT counts by SP can be higher than PSE, PSE is simple and minimally invasive and has a lower incidence of PVT.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27418925 PMCID: PMC4933866 DOI: 10.1155/2016/3471626
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract ISSN: 1687-6121 Impact factor: 2.260
Figure 1Flow diagram outlining the study design.
Background characteristics of enrolled patients.
| Parameters | Control group ( | SP group ( | PSE group ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child-Pugh grade (A : B : C) | 54 : 11 : 0 | 54 : 11 : 0 | 54 : 11 : 0 | 1.0000 |
| Gender (M : F) | 43 : 22 | 45 : 20 | 44 : 21 | 0.9321 |
| Age (y) | 45.3 ± 7.1 | 46.1 ± 8.7 | 46.4 ± 9.4 | 0.7771 |
| WBC count (/mm3) | 3.75 ± 0.88 | 2.81 ± 1.02 | 3.29 ± 0.95 | <0.001 |
| PLT count (103/mm3) | 7.3 ± 2.5 | 3.6 ± 2.7 | 4.5 ± 2.4 | <0.001 |
| HBV DNA level (log10) | 4.27 ± 0.91 | 4.16 ± 0.85 | 4.34 ± 0.88 | 0.5025 |
| Antiviral protocol | 0.9806 | |||
| Lamivudine | 29 | 28 | 28 | |
| Adefovir plus lamivudine | 6 | 5 | 5 | |
| Entecavir plus lamivudine | 2 | 2 | 1 | |
| Spleen weight (g) | 1376 ± 241 | 1440 ± 263 | 1416 ± 219 | 0.3146 |
| Esophageal varices degree (mild : no) | 21 : 44 | 24 : 41 | 26 : 39 | 0.6565 |
| ICG R15 (%) | 19.2 ± 8.4 | 18.4 ± 9.1 | 20.3 ± 10.7 | 0.5167 |
| Comorbidities | 11 | 10 | 8 | 0.7531 |
| Diabetes | 3 | 3 | 2 | |
| Hypertension | 5 | 4 | 3 | |
| COPD | 1 | 0 | 2 | |
| Others | 2 | 3 | 1 | |
| ASA grade (I : II : III) | 41 : 16 : 8 | 44 : 17 : 4 | 38 : 19 : 8 | 0.6793 |
ICG R15, indocyanine green 15 min retention rate.
Intraoperative and postoperative results.
| Parameters | SP group ( | PSE group ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Operative time (min) | 107 ± 12 | 21.33 ± 4.16 | <0.05 |
| Estimated blood loss (mL) | 610 ± 136 | 0.5 | <0.001 |
| Rate of blood transfusion [ | 7 (10.7%) | 0 | <0.05 |
| Severe pain [ | 25 (38.5%) | 9 (13.8%) | <0.05 |
| Complications [total (%)] | 17 (26.2%) | 15 (23.1%) | 0.6839 |
| Intra-abdominal abscess | 1 | 0 | |
| Ascites | 10 | 6 | |
| Internal bleeding | 1 | 0 | |
| Left pleural effusion | 0 | 8 | |
| Atelectasis | 4 | 1 | |
| Pneumonia | 1 | 0 | |
| Postoperative stay (d) | 10.6 ± 2.3 | 9.5 ± 2.1 | <0.01 |
| PVT | 19 (29.2%) | 2 (3.0%) | <0.001 |
| Mortality [ | 1 (1.5%) | 0 | 1.0000 |
Figure 2The preoperative and serial postoperative measurements of WBC and PLT counts. (∗ indicates significant difference compared with the baseline in the PSE group, P < 0.05; $ indicates significant difference compared with the baseline in the SP group, P < 0.05.)
Short-term outcomes (6 m) among the three groups.
| Group | Time | HBV DNA level (log10) | HBeAg positive [ | ICG R15 (%) | Child (A : B : C) | PVT [ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group ( | Baseline | 4.27 ± 0.91 | 37/37 (100%) | 19.2 ± 8.4 | 54 : 11 : 0 | 0 |
| After 6 m | 1.96 ± 0.83 | 29/37 (78.4%) | 18.8 ± 8.9 | 55 : 10 : 0 | 0 | |
|
| ||||||
| SP group ( | Baseline | 4.16 ± 0.85 | 35/35 (100%) | 18.4 ± 9.1 | 54 : 11 : 0 | 0 |
| Postop (6 m) | 1.14 ± 1.05 | 24/35 (68.6%) | 14.8 ± 8.5 | 62 : 3 : 0 | 19 (29.2%) | |
|
| ||||||
| PSE group ( | Baseline | 4.34 ± 0.88 | 34/34 (100%) | 20.3 ± 10.7 | 54 : 11 : 0 | 0 |
| Postop (6 m) | 0.97 ± 1.02 | 21/34 (61.7%) | 16.4 ± 9.3 | 63 : 2 : 0 | 2 (3.0%)& | |
P < 0.05 is considered statistically significant compared with the baseline, # P < 0.05 is considered statistically significant compared with the control group, and & P < 0.05 is considered statistically significant compared with the SP group.
Figure 3Serum albumin (ALB), total bilirubin, international normalized ratio (INR), and globulin before and after the procedure. (∗ indicates significant difference compared with the baseline in the PSE group, P < 0.05; $ indicates significant difference compared with the baseline in the SP group, P < 0.05.)