• 1. Richter MC. Spleen. In: Tobias KM, Johnston SA, eds. Veterinary surgery: small animal. St Louis: Elsevier Saunders, 2012;13411352.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2. Spangler WL, Culbertson MR. Prevalence, type, and importance of splenic diseases in dogs: 1,480 cases (1985–1989). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1992; 200: 829834.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3. Delaitre B, Maignien B. Splenectomy by the laparoscopic approach. Report of a case [in French]. Presse Med 1991; 20: 2263.

  • 4. Gamme G, Birch DW, Karmali S. Minimally invasive splenectomy: an update and review. Can J Surg 2013; 56: 280285.

  • 5. Winslow ER, Brunt LM. Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open splenectomy: a meta-analysis with an emphasis on complications. Surgery 2003; 134: 647653.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6. Brunt LM, Langer JC, Quasebarth MA, et al. Comparative analysis of laparoscopic versus open splenectomy. Am J Surg 1996; 172: 596601.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7. Park A, Maracaccio M, Sternbach M, et al. Laparoscopic vs open splenectomy. Arch Surg 1999; 134: 12631269.

  • 8. Feng S, Qiu Y, Li X, et al. Laparoscopic versus open splenectomy in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis [Published online ahead of print Dec 11, 2015]. Pediatr Surg Int doi:10.1007/s00383-015-3845-2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Patel AG, Parker JE, Wallwork B, et al. Massive splenomegaly is associated with significant morbidity after laparoscopic splenectomy. Ann Surg 2003; 238: 235240.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Kercher KW, Matthews BD, Walsh RM, et al. Laparoscopic splenectomy for massive splenomegaly. Am J Surg 2002; 183: 192196.

  • 11. Targarona EM, Espert JJ, Cerdan G, et al. Effect of spleen size on splenectomy outcome. A comparison of open and laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 1999; 13: 559562.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. Swanson TW, Meneghetti A, Sampath S, et al. Hand-assisted laparoscopic splenectomy versus open splenectomy for massive splenomegaly: 20-year experience at a Canadian centre. Can J Surg 2011; 54: 189193.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. Kuminsky RE, Boland JP, Tiley EH, et al. Hand-assisted laparoscopic splenectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 1995; 5: 436467.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Kaban GK, Czerniach DR, Cohen R, et al. Hand-assisted laparoscopic splenectomy in the setting of splenomegaly. Surg Endosc 2004; 18: 13401343.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15. Rosen M, Brody F, Walsh RM, et al. Hand-assisted laparoscopic splenectomy vs conventional laparoscopic splenectomy in cases of splenomegaly. Arch Surg 2002; 137: 13481352.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16. Habermalz B, Sauerland S, Decker G, et al. Laparoscopic splenectomy: the clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES). Surg Endosc 2008; 22: 821848.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. Qian D, He Z, Hua J, et al. Hand-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic splenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg 2014; 84: 915920.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18. Targarona EM, Balague C, Cerdan G, et al. Hand-assisted laparoscopic splenectomy (HALS) in cases of splenomegaly. Surg Endosc 2002; 16: 426430.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19. Bleedorn JA, Dykema JL, Hardie RJ. Minimally invasive surgery in veterinary practice: a 2010 survey of diplomates and residents of the American College of Veterinary Surgeons. Vet Surg 2013; 42: 635642.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20. Culp WT, Mayhew PD, Brown DC. The effect of laparoscopic versus open ovariectomy on postsurgical activity in small dogs. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 811817.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. Devitt CM, Cox RE, Hailey JJ. Duration, complications, stress, and pain of open ovariohysterectomy versus a simple method of laparoscopic-assisted ovariohysterectomy in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005; 227: 921927.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. Mayhew PD, Freeman L, Kwan T, et al. Comparison of surgical site infection rates in clean and clean-contaminated wounds in dogs and cats after minimally invasive versus open surgery: 179 cases (2007–2008). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2012; 240: 193198.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23. Stedile R, Beck CA, Schiochet F, et al. Laparoscopic versus open splenectomy in dogs. Pesq Vet Bras 2009; 29: 653660.

  • 24. Collard F, Nadeau ME, Carmel EN. Laparoscopic splenectomy for treatment of splenic hemangiosarcoma in a dog. Vet Surg 2010; 39: 870872.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25. Khalaj A, Bakhtiari J, Niasari-Naslaji A. Comparison between single and three portal laparoscopic splenectomy in dogs. BMC Vet Res 2012; 8: 161.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26. Shaver SL, Mayhew PD, Steffey MA, et al. Short-term outcome of multiple port laparoscopic splenectomy in 10 dogs. Vet Surg 2015; 44 (suppl 1):7175.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27. O'Donnell E, Mayhew P, Culp W, et al. Laparoscopic splenectomy: operative technique and outcome in three cats. J Feline Med Surg 2013; 15: 4852.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28. Adamovich-Rippe KN, Mayhew PD, Runge JJ, et al. Evaluation of laparoscopic-assisted ovariohysterectomy for treatment of canine pyometra. Vet Surg 2013; 42: 572578.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29. Baron JK, Giuffrida M, Runge JJ. Evaluation of minimally invasive abdominal exploration and intestinal biopsies (MIAEB) using a novel wound retraction device in cats: 31 cases (2005–2013), in Proceedings. Am Coll Vet Surg Annu Meet 2014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30. Case JB, Ellison G. Single incision laparoscopic-assisted intestinal surgery (SILAIS) in 7 dogs and 1 cat. Vet Surg 2013; 42: 629634.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31. Gower SB, Mayhew PD. A wound retraction device for laparoscopic-assisted intestinal surgery in dogs and cats. Vet Surg 2011; 40: 485488.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32. Rawlings CA. Laparoscopic-assisted gastropexy. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2002; 38: 1519.

  • 33. Greene AK, Hodin RA. Laparoscopic splenectomy for massive splenomegaly using a Lahey bag. Am J Surg 2001; 181: 543546.

  • 34. Targarona EM, Balague C, Trias M. Is the laparoscopic approach reasonable in cases of splenomegaly? Semin Laparosc Surg 2004; 11: 185190.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35. Ozemir IA, Bayraktar B, Bayraktar O, et al. Single-site multiport combined splenectomy and cholecystectomy with conventional laparoscopic instruments: case series and review of literature. Int J Surg Case Rep 2015; 19: 4146.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36. Filicori F, Stock C, Schweitzer AD, et al. Three-dimensional CT volumetry predicts outcome of laparoscopic splenectomy for splenomegaly: a retrospective clinical study. World J Surg 2013; 37: 5258.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37. Horiuchi T, Tanishima H, Tamagawa K, et al. Randomized, controlled investigation of the anti-infective properties of the Alexis retractor/protector of incision sites. J Trauma 2007; 62: 212215.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38. Cheng KP, Roslani AC, Sehha N, et al. ALEXIS O-ring wound retractor vs conventional wound protection for the prevention of surgical site infections in colorectal resections. Colorectal Dis 2012; 14:e346e351.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39. Rivier P, Monnet E. Use of a vessel sealant device for splenectomy in dogs. Vet Surg 2011; 40: 102105.

  • 40. Kennedy JS, Stranahan PL, Taylor KD, et al. High-burst strength, feedback controlled bipolar vessel sealing. Surg Endosc 1998; 12:876878.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41. Heniford BT, Matthews BD, Sing RF, et al. Initial results with an electrothermal bipolar vessel sealer. Surg Endosc 2001; 15: 799801.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42. Monarski CJ, Jaffe MH, Kass PH. Decreased surgical time with a vessel sealing device versus a surgical stapler in performance of canine splenectomy. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2014; 50: 4245.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43. Gelmini R, Romano F, Quaranta N, et al. Sutureless and stapleless laparoscopic splenectomy using radiofrequency: LigaSure device. Surg Endosc 2006; 20: 991994.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44. Arulpragasam SP, Case JB, Ellison GW. Evaluation of costs and time required for laparoscopic-assisted versus open cystotomy for urinary cystolith removal in dogs: 43 cases (2009–2012). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2013; 243: 703708.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45. Runge JJ, Boston RC, Ross SB, et al. Evaluation of the learning curve for a board-certified veterinary surgeon performing laparoendoscopic single-site ovariectomy in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2014; 245: 828835.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Laparoscopic-assisted splenectomy in dogs: 18 cases (2012–2014)

Tanya Wright DVM1, Ameet Singh DVM, DVSC2, Philipp D. Mayhew BVM&S3, Jeffrey J. Runge DVM4, Brigitte A. Brisson DVM, DVSC5, Michelle L. Oblak DVM, DVSC6, and J. Brad Case DVM, MS7
View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1H 2W1, Canada.
  • | 2 Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1H 2W1, Canada.
  • | 3 Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.
  • | 4 Department of Clinical Studies-Philadelphia, Matthew J. Ryan Veterinary Hospital, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
  • | 5 Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1H 2W1, Canada.
  • | 6 Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1H 2W1, Canada.
  • | 7 Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32608.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To describe the operative technique and perioperative outcome for laparoscopic-assisted splenectomy (LAS) in dogs.

DESIGN Retrospective case series.

ANIMALS 18 client-owned dogs.

PROCEDURES Medical records of dogs with naturally occurring disease of the spleen treated by means of LAS between 2012 and 2014 were reviewed. History, signalment, results of physical examination, results of preoperative diagnostic testing, details of surgical technique, intraoperative findings including results of abdominal exploration and staging, concurrent surgical procedures, complications, histopathologic diagnoses, duration of postoperative hospitalization, and perioperative outcome were recorded. The perioperative period was defined as the time from hospital admission for LAS until discharge or death (within the same visit).

RESULTS All dogs underwent initial abdominal exploration and staging via multiple 5-mm laparoscopic ports (n = 2) or a single commercially available multichannel port (16), followed by minilaparotomy with insertion of a wound retraction device, progressive exteriorization of the spleen, sealing of hilar vessels, and splenectomy. Splenectomy was performed for treatment of a splenic mass (n = 15), suspected neoplasia (2), or refractory immune-mediated disease (1). Median size (width × length) of splenic masses was 5 × 5 cm (range, 1.6 to 11.0 cm × 1.5 to 14.5 cm). Complications were limited to minor intraoperative hemorrhage in 1 dog; no patient required conversion to open laparotomy.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results indicated that LAS was technically feasible in dogs and not associated with major complications. Further evaluation is required; however, in appropriately selected patients, LAS may offer the benefits of a minimally invasive technique, including a smaller incision and improved illumination and magnification during exploration and staging.

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Singh (amsingh@uoguelph.ca).