Should Open Splenectomies Still Only be Recommended in Benign Heatologic Diseases Refractory to Medical Therapy?

PURPOSE: A laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) has been proposed as a substitute to an open splenctomy (OS) in the treatment of benign hematological diseases that are refractory to medical therapy in many centers. However, in Korea, many clinicians do not inform patients of the option of a LS in whom a splenectomy is needed. This study was undertaken to compare the safety, the outcome including the clinical benefits of a LS and an OS for a variety of benign hematological diseases. METHODS: The records of 137 patients who underwent a splenectomy (15 OS and 122 LS) at the Asan Medical Center between January 1998 and December 2002 were reviewed retrospectively. The patient demographics, surgical indications, perioperative results, morbidity, mortality and clinical outcome were evaluated. RESULTS: Open splenectomies were performed by 4 surgeons and a LS was performed by one surgeon after receiving informed consent regarding each procedure (OS & LS). Thirty eight cases (28.2%) were transfered to our department from another hospital without being given any information of LS. There was no significant difference in age, gender, ASA grading, previous abdominal surgery and comorbid diseases between the two groups. The average operating time was longer in those given a LS than OS (P0.05, 84% vs 78%, respectively) during a mean follow-up period of 38+/-12 months. CONCLUSION: LS takes longer to perform but results in minimal blood loss, less analgesics, a shorter postoperative stay and fewer complications than OS. In addition, a laparoscopic splenctomy is a safe, efficacious and a superior treatment for patients with various benign hematological disorders. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that surgeons inform patients of the option of a LS and give consideration to a transfer to other hospitals where advanced laparoscopic procedures are feasible.

Comparative Study of the Manual and Stapled Anastomosis in Patients Undergoing a Billroth I Gastrectomy for Carcinoma of the Stomach

BACKGROUND : The purpose of this study was to determine whether the Billroth I method using an EEA stapler is safe, reliable, and easy-to-use for treatment of gastric cancer compared with a distal gastrectomy with conventional manual anastomosis. METHODS : A prospective comparative study was performed between forty patients with EEA stapling and thirty patients with manual suturing during gastroduodenostomies performed during the past three years with respect to operation time, diameter of anastomosis, postoperative clinical course, and post operative complications. RESULTS : The operation time was significantly shortened by about 50 minutes on the average, in the cases where the EEA stapler was used (p<0.001). On postoperative hypotonic duodenography, the diameter of the anastomosis was significantly larger in the cases where the EEA stapler was used (p< 0.001). However, the postoperative clinical course showed no difference between the two groups. Complications, such as anastomotic stenosis and anastomotic leak age were noted only in the cases where manual suturing was used. CONCLUSIONS : A gastroduodenostomy using the EEA stapler might be a faster, simpler and safer pro cedure compared with the gastroduodenostomy using the conventional manual anastomosis.