• 1.

    Wendelburg KM, O’Toole TE, McCobb E, Price LL, Lyons JA, Berg J. Risk factors for perioperative death in dogs undergoing splenectomy for splenic masses: 539 cases (2001–2012). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2014;245(12):13821390. doi:10.2460/javma.245.12.1382

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Collard F, Nadeau ME, Carmel EN. Laparoscopic splenectomy for treatment of splenic hemangiosarcoma in a dog. Vet Surg. 2010;39(7):870872. doi:10.1111/j.1532-950X.2010.00721.x

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Stedile R, Beck CAC, Schiochet F, et al. Laparoscopic versus open splenectomy in dogs. Pesqui Vet Bras. 2009;29:653660. doi:10.1590/S0100-736X2009000800009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Wright T, Singh A, Mayhew PD, et al. Laparoscopic-assisted splenectomy in dogs: 18 cases (2012–2014). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2016;248(8):916922. doi:10.2460/javma.248.8.916

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Tobias KM. Abdominal procedures. In: Tobias KM, ed. Manual of Small Animal Soft Tissue Surgery. 1st ed. John Wiley & Sons; 2009:103108.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Fossum TW. Surgery of the hemolymphatic system. In: Fossum TW, ed. Small Animal Surgery. 4th ed. Mosby; 2018:692705.

  • 7.

    Bleedorn JA, Dykeman 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(6):635642. doi:0.1111/j.1532-950X.2013.12025.x

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Khalaj A, Bakhtiari J, Niasari-Naslaji A. Comparison between single and three portal laparoscopic splenectomy in dogs. BMC Vet Res. 2012;8):161. doi:10.1186/1746-6148-8-161

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Mayhew PD, Sutton JS, Singh A, et al. Complications and short-term outcomes associated with single-port laparoscopic splenectomy in dogs. Vet Surg. 2018;47(S1):O67O74. doi:10.1111/vsu.12752

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Maurin MP, Mullins RA, Singh A, Mayhew PD. A systematic review of complications related to laparoscopic and laparoscopic-assisted procedures in dogs. Vet Surg. 2020;49(suppl 1):O5O14. doi:10.1111/vsu.13419

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Shaver SL, Mayhew PD, Steffey MA, Hunt GB, Mayhew KN, Culp WTN. Short-term outcome of multiple port laparoscopic splenectomy in 10 dogs. Vet Surg. 2015;44(suppl 1):7175. doi:10.1111/j.1532-950X.2014.12312.x

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    LeBlanc AK, Atherton M, Bentley RT, et al. Veterinary Cooperative Oncology Group—Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (VCOG-CTCAE v2) following investigational therapy in dogs and cats. Vet Comp Oncol. 2021;19(2):311352. doi:10.1111/vco.12677

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Case JB, Ellison G. Single incision laparoscopic-assisted intestinal surgery (SILAIS) in 7 dogs and 1 cat. Vet Surg. 2013;42(5):629634. doi:10.1111/j.1532-950X.2013.12017.x

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Follette CM, Giuffrida MA, Balsa IM, et al. A systematic review of criteria used to report complications in soft tissue and oncologic surgical clinical research studies in dogs and cats. Vet Surg. 2020;49(1):6169. doi:10.1111/vsu.13279

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Targarona EM, Balague C, Cerdán G, et al. Hand-assisted laparoscopic splenectomy (HALS) in cases of splenomegaly: a comparison analysis with conventional laparoscopic splenectomy. Surg Endosc. 2002;16(3):426430. doi:10.1007/s00464-001-8104-z

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Kaban GK, Czerniach DR, Cohen R, et al. Hand-assisted laparoscopic splenectomy in the setting of splenomegaly. Surg Endosc. 2004;18(9):13401343. doi:10.1007/s00464-003-9175-9

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Bemelman WA, de Wit LT, Busch OR, Gouma DJ. Hand-assisted laparoscopic splenectomy. Surg Endosc. 2000;14(11):997998. doi:10.1007/s004640080121

  • 18.

    Qian D, He Z, Hua J, Gong J, Lin S, Song Z. Hand-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic splenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg. 2014;84(12):915920. doi:10.1111/ans.12597

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Sun X, Liu Z, Huang Y. Hand-assisted laparoscopic splenectomy advantages over complete laparoscopic splenectomy for splenomegaly. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2019;29(2):109112. doi:10.1097/SLE.0000000000000640

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Leyva FJ, Loughin CA, Dewey CW, Marino DJ, Akerman M, Lesser ML. Histopathologic characteristics of biopsies from dogs undergoing surgery with concurrent gross splenic and hepatic masses: 125 cases (2012–2016). BMC Res Notes. 2018;11(1):122. doi:10.1186/s13104-018-3220-1

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Complications and outcomes associated with laparoscopic-assisted splenectomy in dogs

Marissa E. S. McGaffey HBSc, DVM1, Ameet Singh DVM, DVSc, DACVSc1, Nicole J. Buote DVM, DACVS2, Philipp D. Mayhew BVM&S, DACVS3, Nicole Rupnik BSc3, Federico Massari DVM, DECVS4, J. Brad Case DVM, MS, DACVS5, Boel A. Fransson DVM, PhD, DACVS6, Michelle L. Oblak DVM, DVSc, DACVS1, Brigitte A. Brisson DMV, DVSc, DACVS1, Jacqueline E. Scott DVS, DACVS7, Victoria A. Donovan HBSc, MSc1, Ryan Appleby DVM, DACVR1, and Gabrielle Monteith1
View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada
  • | 2 Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
  • | 3 Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA
  • | 4 DOCVET Clinica Veterinaria Nervianese, Nerviano, Italy
  • | 5 Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
  • | 6 Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Washington State University, Pullman, WA
  • | 7 Illinois Veterinary Teaching Hospital, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To report the perioperative characteristics and outcomes of dogs undergoing laparoscopic-assisted splenectomy (LAS).

ANIMALS

136 client-owned dogs.

PROCEDURES

Multicentric retrospective study. Medical records of dogs undergoing LAS for treatment of naturally occurring splenic disease from January 1, 2014, to July 31, 2020, were reviewed. History, signalment, physical examination and preoperative diagnostic test results, procedural information, complications, duration of hospitalization, histopathologic diagnosis, and perioperative outcomes were recorded. Perioperative complications were defined using the Veterinary Cooperative Oncology Group – Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (VCOG-CTCAE v2) guidelines.

RESULTS

LAS was performed for treatment of a splenic mass (124/136 [91%]), immune-mediated disease (7/136 [5%]), splenomegaly (4/136 [3%]), or immune-mediated disease in conjunction with a splenic mass (1/136 [1%]). Median splenic mass size was 1.3 cm3/kg body weight. Conversion to open laparotomy occurred in 5.9% (8/136) of dogs. Complications occurred in 78 dogs, with all being grade 2 or lower. Median surgical time was 47 minutes, and median postoperative hospital stay was 28 hours. All but 1 dog survived to discharge, the exception being postoperative death due to a suspected portal vein thrombus.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In the dogs of this report, LAS was associated with low rates of major complications, morbidity, and mortality when performed for a variety of splenic pathologies. Minimally invasive surgeons can consider the LAS technique to perform total splenectomy in dogs without hemoabdomen and with spleens with modest-sized splenic masses up to 55.2 cm3/kg, with minimal rates of complications, morbidity, and mortality.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To report the perioperative characteristics and outcomes of dogs undergoing laparoscopic-assisted splenectomy (LAS).

ANIMALS

136 client-owned dogs.

PROCEDURES

Multicentric retrospective study. Medical records of dogs undergoing LAS for treatment of naturally occurring splenic disease from January 1, 2014, to July 31, 2020, were reviewed. History, signalment, physical examination and preoperative diagnostic test results, procedural information, complications, duration of hospitalization, histopathologic diagnosis, and perioperative outcomes were recorded. Perioperative complications were defined using the Veterinary Cooperative Oncology Group – Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (VCOG-CTCAE v2) guidelines.

RESULTS

LAS was performed for treatment of a splenic mass (124/136 [91%]), immune-mediated disease (7/136 [5%]), splenomegaly (4/136 [3%]), or immune-mediated disease in conjunction with a splenic mass (1/136 [1%]). Median splenic mass size was 1.3 cm3/kg body weight. Conversion to open laparotomy occurred in 5.9% (8/136) of dogs. Complications occurred in 78 dogs, with all being grade 2 or lower. Median surgical time was 47 minutes, and median postoperative hospital stay was 28 hours. All but 1 dog survived to discharge, the exception being postoperative death due to a suspected portal vein thrombus.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In the dogs of this report, LAS was associated with low rates of major complications, morbidity, and mortality when performed for a variety of splenic pathologies. Minimally invasive surgeons can consider the LAS technique to perform total splenectomy in dogs without hemoabdomen and with spleens with modest-sized splenic masses up to 55.2 cm3/kg, with minimal rates of complications, morbidity, and mortality.

Contributor Notes

Corresponding author: Dr. Singh (amsingh@uoguelph.ca)