Comparison of Iatrogenic Splenectomy During Open and Laparoscopic Colon Resection

Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA.
Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques (Impact Factor: 1.14). 11/2007; 17(5):385-7. DOI: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e3180dc93aa
Source: PubMed


Iatrogenic splenic injury requiring splenectomy is a well-recognized and potentially serious complication of colon resection. Iatrogenic splenectomy is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, including bleeding and the postsplenectomy sepsis syndrome. Our study aims to compare the incidence of iatrogenic splenectomy in laparoscopic colon resection with that of open colon resection over an 11-year-period at Mount Sinai. A retrospective chart review of all patients undergoing colon resection at Mount Sinai Medical Center during the last 11 years was performed to identify patient demographics, procedure, indication, and outcome. There was a significant difference (P=0.03) in the incidence of iatrogenic splenectomy during open colectomy (13/5477, 0.24%) versus laparoscopic colectomy (0/1911, 0%). All cases complicated by iatrogenic splenectomy involved splenic flexure mobilization. Laparoscopy has many recognized advantages over open procedures, including shorter recovery and length of stay. This retrospective review of our experience at Mount Sinai presents another potential benefit of the laparoscopic approach to colon resection.

1 Follower
10 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Accidental splenic laceration and hemorrhage during natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) can lead to life-threatening consequences. The NOTES approach may need to be aborted in these circumstances for a standard laparoscopy or laparotomy. To determine the feasibility of endoscopically managing intraoperative splenic laceration and hemorrhage during NOTES using standard endoscopic tools. Nine pigs underwent transcolonic endoscopic surgery, and 18 intentional splenic lacerations were made. Animals were treated as follows: (1) control group with no therapy (n = 3), (2) endoscopic tamponade/packing (n = 3), and (3) endoscopic hemostasis with bipolar cautery (n = 12). A blinded second endoscopist performed NOTES exploration and attempted to identify the site and treat the laceration in 3 cases. The colonic incision was closed using endoclips in the survival studies. Necropsy was performed immediately after surgery in acute cases and at the end of 1 week in the survival cases. Bleeding persisted beyond 10 minutes in all control cases without therapy. In the tamponade group, bleeding persisted beyond 17 minutes in 2 and a large clot formed at 12 minutes in 1 case that precluded further assessment. Bleeding was controlled endoscopically using standard bipolar cautery in all animals (mean time: 12 minutes). All lacerations were identified and managed by the blinded endoscopist. Survival animals had an uncomplicated postoperative course. No bleeding was seen at necropsy. We demonstrate the management of intraoperative splenic hemorrhage during NOTES using standard endoscopic tools. The site of splenic bleeding could be correctly identified and treated in a blinded fashion.
    Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques 01/2011; 21(1):39-43. DOI:10.1089/lap.2010.0416 · 1.34 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We have hypothesized that splenic flexure mobilization might be selectively undertaken in laparoscopic surgery (LAP) for rectal or sigmoid colon cancer. Oncologic clearance and postoperative morbidity were compared between 119 LAP patients and 145 open surgery (OS), all of whom were treated without splenic flexure mobilization. The operative time was similar in the 2 groups (P>0.05). The complication rate was lower after LAP than after OS (10.0% vs. 25.5%, P=0.043). Anastomotic leakage occurred in 1 patient after LAP. On a median 29-month follow-up, the local recurrence rates did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (0.9% for LAP vs. 2.6% for OS). Laparoscopic procedures without routine splenic flexure mobilization do not increase postoperative morbidity or oncologic risk, as compared with OS. We suggest that laparoscopic rectal and sigmoid cancer resection can be safely conducted with selective splenic flexure mobilization.
    Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques 03/2009; 19(1):62-8. DOI:10.1097/SLE.0b013e318196cdb0 · 1.14 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate laparoscopic versus open subtotal colectomy (STC) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) requiring urgent or emergent operative intervention. A retrospective review was performed of 90 patients with medically refractory UC who underwent STC with end ileostomy at The Mount Sinai Medical Center from 2002 to 2007. Patients with toxic megacolon were excluded. Univariate analysis was conducted by unpaired Student t-test and chi-square test. Results are presented as mean +/- 95% confidence interval. Ninety patients underwent STC, 29 by laparoscopic and 61 by open approach. In patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open STC, intraoperative blood loss was decreased (130.4 +/- 38.4 vs. 201.4 +/- 43.2 ml, p < 0.05) and operative time prolonged (216.4 +/- 20.2 vs. 169.9 +/- 14.4 min, p < 0.01). In the absence of postoperative complication, hospital length of stay (4.5 +/- 0.7 vs. 6 +/- 1.3 days, p < 0.001) was shorter in laparoscopic versus open group. No mortalities occurred. Overall morbidity, 30-day readmission, and reoperation were equivalent regardless of operative approach. Wound complications were absent in the laparoscopic group compared with 21.4% in the open group (p < 0.01). Follow-up at a mean of 36 months demonstrated no difference in restoration of gastrointestinal continuity. Laparoscopic STC confers the benefits of improved cosmesis, reduced intraoperative blood loss, negligible wound complications, and shorter hospital stay. Laparoscopy is a feasible and safe alternative to open STC in patients with UC refractory to medical therapy requiring urgent or emergent operation.
    Surgical Endoscopy 03/2010; 24(7):1616-20. DOI:10.1007/s00464-009-0819-2 · 3.26 Impact Factor
Show more