Effect of spleen size on splenectomy outcome. A comparison of open and laparoscopic surgery

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) is gaining acceptance as an alternative to open splenectomy (OS). However, splenomegaly presents an obstacle to LS, and massive splenomegaly has been considered a contraindication. Analyses comparing the procedure with the open approach are lacking. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of spleen size on operative and immediate clinical outcome in a series of 105 LS compared with a series of 81 cases surgically treated by an open approach.

Methods: Between January 1990 and November 1998, 186 patients underwent a splenectomy for a wide range of splenic disorders. Of these patients, 105 were treated by laparoscopy (group I, LS; data prospectively recorded) and 81 were treated by an open approach (group II, OS analyzed retrospectively). Patients also were classified into three groups according to spleen weight: group A, <400 g; group B, 400-1000 g; and group C, >1000 g. Age, gender, operative time, perioperative transfusion, spleen weight, conversion rate, mode of spleen retrieval (bag or accessory incision), postoperative analgesia, length of stay, and morbidity were recorded in both main groups.

Results: Operative time was significantly longer for LS than for OS. However, LS morbidity, mortality, and postoperative stay were all lower at similar spleen weights. Spleens weighing more than 3,200 g required conversion to open surgery in all cases. When LS outcome for hematologic malignant diagnosis was compared with LS outcome for a benign diagnosis, malignancy did not increase conversion rate, morbidity, and transfusion, even though malignant spleens were larger and accessory incisions were required more frequently. Postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in malignant than in benign diagnosis (5 +/- 2.4 days vs. 4 +/- 2.3 days; p < 0. 05).

Conclusions: In patients with enlarged spleens, LS is feasible and followed by lower morbidity, transfusion rate, and shorter hospital stay than when the open approach is used. For the treatment of this subset of patients, who usually present with more severe hematologic diseases related to greater morbidity, LS presents potential advantages.