ArticleSurgical endoscopy2013
Single incision versus reduced port splenectomy--searching for the best alternative to conventional laparoscopic splenectomy.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Guideline
- Laparoscopic Splenectomy for Benign Hematological Disorders in Adults: A Systematic Review.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Pooled it
- Single-incision laparoscopic splenectomy.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsPooled it
- Efficacy and safety of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Spleen size evaluation in children: Time to define splenomegaly for pediatric surgeons and pediatricians.PloS one · 2018Article
- Clinical, Anatomical, and Pathological Grading Score to Predict Technical Difficulty in Laparoscopic Splenectomy for Non-traumatic Diseases.World journal of surgery · 2017Article
- Perioperative spleen embolization as a useful tool in laparoscopic splenectomy for simple and massive splenomegaly in children: a prospective study.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Article
- Laparoscopic splenectomy for primary immune thrombocytopenia: Current status and challenges.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2016Review
- Transumbilical single-incision endoscopic splenectomy: report of ten cases.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Article
- Totally laparoscopic anterior resection with transvaginal assistance and transvaginal specimen extraction: a technique for natural orifice surgery combined with reduced-port surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2013Article
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic splenectomy.Journal of minimal access surgeryReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic splenectomy (LS) is a well accepted approach for the treatment of multiple hematologic diseases. Single port access splenectomy (SPAS) emphasizes the concept of surgery through one small incision. The reduced port access splenectomy (RPAS) entails the use of fewer trocars of smaller sizes. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes after LS, SPAS, and RPAS, and to analyze the aesthetic result and patient satisfaction.
methodsWe included patients who underwent LS (group 1, n = 15), SPAS (group 2, n = 8), and RPAS (group 3, n = 10) between June 2008 and February 2012, whose final spleen weight was less of 500 g. The outcome parameters analyzed were operative time, need of additional trocars, blood loss, blood transfusion, weight of the spleen, postoperative complications, and duration of hospital stay. To evaluate the cosmetic result, patients were asked to take the Body Image Questionnaire.
resultsPatients in group 3 were younger than group 1. Operative time was significantly longer in group 2 compared to groups 1 and 3 (83 ± 19 vs. 131 ± 43 vs. 81 ± 22 min, p = 0.01). There was no need to convert to open surgery in any group, nor were there differences in intra- or postoperative outcome. There were no differences between the groups in relation to the analgesic requirements. Twenty-two out of the 33 patients answered the questionnaire. There was a significant advantage in group 2 and 3 in the body image index with respect to group 1. There were no differences between groups 2 and 3 (7.3 ± 2.8 vs. 5.8 ± 1.3 vs. 5.1 ± 0.4, p < 0.02).
conclusionsRPAS is a good alternative to LS and SPAS. It improves the aesthetic results as compared to LS, whereas minimizes the technical challenges faced with SPAS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23052510What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.