Prospective randomized comparison of open versus laparoscopic management of splenic artery aneurysms: a 10-year study

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The literature does not support the choice between open and laparoscopic management of splenic artery aneurysms (SAA). METHODS: We designed a prospective, randomized comparison between open and laparoscopic surgery for SAA. Primary end points were types of surgical procedures performed and clinical outcomes. Analysis was developed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were allocated to laparotomy (group A) and 15 to laparoscopy (group B). Groups displayed similar patient- and aneurysm-related characteristics. The conversion rate to open surgery was 13.3 %. The type of surgical procedure performed on the splenic artery was similar in the two groups: aneurysmectomy with splenic artery ligature or direct anastomosis was performed in 51 % and 21 % of patients in group A and in 60 % and 20 % in group B, respectively. The splenectomy rate was similar (14 % vs. 20 %). Postoperative splenic infarction was observed in one case in each group. Laparoscopy was associated with shorter procedures (p = 0.0003) and lower morbidity (25 % vs. 64 %, p = 0.045). Major morbidity requiring interventional procedures and blood transfusion was observed only in group A. Laparoscopy was associated with quicker resumption of oral diet (p < 0.001), earlier drain removal (p = 0.046), and shorter hospital stay (p < 0.01). During a mean follow-up of 50 months, two patients in group A required hospital readmission. In group B, two patients developed a late thrombosis of arterial anastomoses. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that laparoscopy permits multiple technical options, does not increase the splenectomy rate, and reduces postoperative complications. It confirms the supposed clinical benefits of laparoscopy when ablative procedures are required but laparoscopic anastomoses show poor long-term results.