Comparison of two laparoscopic splenectomy plus pericardial devascularization techniques for management of portal hypertension and hypersplenism
Defei Hong,Jian Cheng,Zhifei Wang,Guoliang Shen,Zhijie Xie,Weiding Wu,Yuhua Zhang,Yuanbiao Zhang,Xiaolong Liu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4147-4
2015-01-01
Surgical Endoscopy
Abstract:Objective Our research was conducted to analyze the outcomes of two laparoscopic splenectomy plus pericardial devascularization (LSPD) techniques in the management of portal hypertension (PTH) and hypersplenism. Methods Between May 2012 and May 2013, 41 patients with PTH and hypersplenism undergoing LSPD were retrospectively analyzed. Of them, 29 patients received LSPD by LigaSure™ Vessel Sealing System (LVSS) and Endo-GIA™ universal endoscopic vascular linear staplers (Endo-GIA) (EG Group) and 12 patients received LSPD by LVSS and Hem-o-Lock (HL Group). Operating time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative course, and hospitalization costs were compared between the two LSPD combination techniques. Results There were no significant differences in preoperative patient characteristics of the two groups. Significantly less operating time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative complications were observed in EG Group. The incidence of portal vein thrombosis was lower in the EG Group (3.4 vs. 8.3 %), as well as the incidence of pancreatic fistula (0 vs. 8.3 %). Upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage was not observed in either group. Uncontrolled bleeding warranted conversion to open surgery in one case in EG Group (conversion rate 3.4 %) and in two cases in HL Group (conversion rate 16.7 %). Two patients (16.7 %) in HL Group underwent successful emergency exploratory laparotomy due to uncontrolled intraabdominal bleeding postoperatively. No re-operation was needed in EG Group. Two patients experienced liver failure after surgery in each group. Of those, three patients were managed successfully and one patient refused further therapy. While the overall complication rate was significantly lower in EG Group (17.2 vs. 58.3 %, P < 0.05), overall hospitalization costs remained significantly higher for EG Group. Conclusion The results suggest that the modified Endo-GIA and LVSS technique is a safe and effective combination approach to LSPD with shorter operative time, less intraoperative blood loss, lower conversion rate to laparotomy, shorter hospital stay, better recovery, and lower postoperative complication rate compared with the Hem-o-Lock and LVSS approach. Higher hospitalization expenses associated with the Endo-GIA and LVSS approach.