These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Laparoscopy improves outcomes for pediatric splenectomy.
    Author: Curran TJ, Foley MI, Swanstrom LL, Campbell TJ.
    Journal: J Pediatr Surg; 1998 Oct; 33(10):1498-500. PubMed ID: 9802800.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Pediatric laparoscopic splenectomy is a relatively new surgical procedure with a limited number of reports comparing its outcomes to that of the open procedure. The authors have minimized the invasiveness of our procedure by using only three ports and have described the technique as well as compared it with the open method. METHODS: A retrospective review of seven laparoscopic splenectomies (LS) using a three port technique were compared with seven open splenectomies (OS) performed for similar indications at a single children's hospital. RESULTS: The average age in the LS group was 8.7 years compared with 8.9 years for OS, (P value not significant), and the average weights were also similar. The indications for splenectomy were hereditary spherocytosis, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, sickle cell anemia, and splenic cyst. All splenectomies were performed safely with an average estimated blood loss of 41 mL for LS and 34 mL for OS (P value not significant). Operative time averaged 147 minutes for LS and 86 minutes for OS (P < .05). LS patients recovered more rapidly and were discharged home on a median of postoperative day (POD) 2 versus POD 4 for OS (P < .05). LS patients received significantly less total amount of intravenous pain medication with an average of 0.18 mg/kg of morphine sulfate versus 0.8 mg/kg for OS (P< .05). Total hospital charges were higher for LS with an average of $10,899 versus $8,275 for OS (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic splenectomy currently is a safe procedure, offering better cosmesis, much less pain, and a shorter hospital stay compared with the traditional open procedure. The more sophisticated equipment and time needed to carry out the procedure led to a modestly increased hospital cost.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]