Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic Splenectomy: What is the Real Benefit?

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The laparoscopic approach to a difficult splenectomy requires a longer total operative time and is frequently associated with an increased risk of bleeding and a high conversion rate.

Methods

A total of 418 elective splenectomies were registered in the Department of General Surgery and Liver Transplantation of Fundeni Clinical Institute between January 1995 and June 2012, of which 299 splenectomies (212 laparoscopic and 77 robotic) were performed by a single surgical team and retrospectively documented. The effect of the learning curve and the relative complexity of each type of procedure were analyzed using the Minimally Invasive Splenectomy Score, which further allowed categorizing the splenectomies as simple or difficult. Statistical analyses using the CUSUM algorithm of the intra- and postoperative parameters of the laparoscopic and robotic approaches, for both the simple and the difficult splenectomies, were performed.

Results

The results of the statistical analyses clearly indicated that there was a learning curve effect for laparoscopic splenectomy but not for robotic splenectomy. When compared with the laparoscopic approach in difficult splenectomies, the robotic approach had a shorter total operative time (84.13 vs. 97.2 min), less blood loss (30.88 vs. 156.9 ml), and decreased risk of hemorrhagic complications during surgery.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic splenectomy remains the approach of choice for simple splenectomies in the surgical treatment for common indications. The robotic system is particularly beneficial in difficult splenectomies (i.e., partial splenectomy, splenectomy in liver cirrhosis, splenic tumors, or malignant hemopathies).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Delaitre B, Maignien B (1991) Splenectomy by the laparoscopic approach. Report of a case. Presse Med 20(44):2263

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Feldman LS (2011) Laparoscopic splenectomy: standardized approach. World J Surg 35(7):1487–1495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Targarona EM, Espert JJ, Cerdan G, Balague C, Piulachs J, Sugranes G et al (1999) Effect of spleen size on splenectomy outcome. A comparison of open and laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 13(6):559–562

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Casaccia M, Torelli P, Squarcia S, Sormani MP, Savelli A, Troilo B et al (2006) Laparoscopic splenectomy for hematologic diseases: a preliminary analysis performed on the Italian Registry of Laparoscopic Surgery of the Spleen (IRLSS). Surg Endosc 20(8):1214–1220

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brodsky JA, Brody FJ, Walsh RM, Malm JA, Ponsky JL (2002) Laparoscopic splenectomy. Surg Endosc 16(5):851–854

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Grahn SW, Alvarez J III, Kirkwood K (2006) Trends in laparoscopic splenectomy for massive splenomegaly. Arch Surg 141(8):755–761

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Imura S, Shimada M, Utsunomiya T, Morine Y, Ikemoto T, Mori H et al (2010) Impact of splenectomy in patients with liver cirrhosis: Results from 18 patients in a single center experience. Hepatol Res 40(9):894–900

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chan SW, Hensman C, Waxman BP, Blamey S, Cox J, Farrell K et al (2002) Technical developments and a team approach leads to an improved outcome: lessons learnt implementing laparoscopic splenectomy. ANZ J Surg 72(7):523–527

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tan M, Zheng CX, Wu ZM, Chen GT, Chen LH, Zhao ZX (2003) Laparoscopic splenectomy: the latest technical evaluation. World J Gastroenterol 9(5):1086–1089

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Maeso S, Reza M, Mayol JA, Blasco JA, Guerra M, Andradas E et al (2010) Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 252(2):254–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Vasilescu C, Stanciulea O, Tudor S (2012) Laparoscopic versus robotic subtotal splenectomy in hereditary spherocytosis. Potential advantages and limits of an expensive approach. Surg Endosc 26(10):2802–2809

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Vasilescu C, Stanciulea O, Tudor S, Stanescu D, Colita A, Stoia R et al (2006) Laparoscopic subtotal splenectomy in hereditary spherocytosis: to preserve the upper or the lower pole of the spleen? Surg Endosc 20(5):748–752

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Vasilescu C, Tudor S, Popa M, Tiron A, Lupescu I (2010) Robotic partial splenectomy for hydatid cyst of the spleen. Langenbecks Arch Surg 395(8):1169–1174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Vasilescu C (2005) Laparoscopic splenectomy. Chirurgia (Bucur) 100(6):595–598

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Vasilescu C, Tomulescu V, Ciurea S, Popescu I (2001) [Laparoscopic splenectomy–lessons learned from a series of 40 cases. The advantages of the postero-lateral approach]. Chirurgia (Bucur) 96(2):231–236

  16. Qian D, He Z, Hua J, Gong J, Lin S, Song Z (2014) Hand-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic splenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg. doi:10.1111/ans.12597

  17. Wang X, Li Y, Peng B (2013) Hand-assisted laparoscopic technique in the setting of complicated splenectomy: a 9-year experience. World J Surg 37(9):2046–2052

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang X, Li Y, Zhou J, Wu Z, Peng B (2012) Hand-assited laparoscopic splenectomy is a better choice for patients with supramassive splenomegaly due to liver cirrhosis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 22(10):962–977

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Barnard GA (1959) Control charts and stochastic processes. J R Stat Soc Series B 21:239–271

    Google Scholar 

  20. Noyez L (2009) Control charts, Cusum techniques and funnel plots. A review of methods for monitoring performance in healthcare. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 9(3):494–499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bani Hani MN, Qasaimeh GR, Bani-Hani KE, Alwaqfi NR, Al Manasra AR, Matani YS et al (2010) Laparoscopic splenectomy: consensus and debatable points. S Afr J Surg 48(3):81–84

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Heniford BT, Park A, Walsh RM, Kercher KW, Matthews BD, Frenette G et al (2001) Laparoscopic splenectomy in patients with normal-sized spleens versus splenomegaly: does size matter? Am Surg 67(9):854–857

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Vasilescu C, Stanciulea O, Colita A, Stoia R, Moicean A, Arion C (2003) Laparoscopic subtotal splenectomy in the treatment of hereditary spherocytosis. Chirurgia (Bucur) 98(6):571–576

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Corcione F, Esposito C, Cuccurullo D, Settembre A, Miranda N, Amato F et al (2005) Advantages and limits of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: preliminary experience. Surg Endosc 19(1):117–119

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hashizume M, Tsugawa K (2004) Robotic surgery and cancer: the present state, problems and future vision. Jpn J Clin Oncol 34(5):227–237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Vasilescu C, Popescu I (2008) Robotic surgery–possibilities and perspectives. Chirurgia (Bucur) 103(1):9–11

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bodner J, Lucciarini P, Fish J, Kafka-Ritsch R, Schmid T (2005) Laparoscopic splenectomy with the da Vinci robot. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 15(1):1–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gelmini R, Franzoni C, Spaziani A, Patriti A, Casciola L, Saviano M (2011) Laparoscopic splenectomy: conventional versus robotic approach–a comparative study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 21(5):393–398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Giulianotti PC, Buchs NC, Addeo P, Ayloo S, Bianco FM (2011) Robot-assisted partial and total splenectomy. Int J Med Robot 7(4):482–488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a Grant from the Ministry of National Education, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project No. PN-II-ID-PCE-2012-4-0018.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Fundeni Clinical Institute, 258 Fundeni Street, Bucharest, Romania

    Stefan Tudor & Catalin Vasilescu

  2. “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania

    Catalin Vasilescu

  3. Department of Hematology, Fundeni Clinical Institute, Bucharest, Romania

    Dana-Elena Giza

  4. Faculty of Applied Sciences, Department of Mathematical Methods and Models, Politehnica University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania

    Raluca Roxana Purnichescu-Purtan

Authors
  1. Dana-Elena Giza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan Tudor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raluca Roxana Purnichescu-Purtan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Catalin Vasilescu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catalin Vasilescu.

Additional information

D.-E. Giza and S. Tudor contributed equally to this work.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 22 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Giza, DE., Tudor, S., Purnichescu-Purtan, R.R. et al. Robotic Splenectomy: What is the Real Benefit?. World J Surg 38, 3067–3073 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2697-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2697-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation