ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
The safety and feasibility of laparoscopic partial splenectomy: analysis of perioperative indications from different vascular subtypes and improvement of surgical approach.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microwave ablation-assisted laparoscopic partial splenectomy with multi-angle layered ablation.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2026Article
- Ultrasound-guided percutaneous microwave ablation of splenic solid lesions: experience in a rare cohort.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Robotic partial splenectomy: a new standardized approach.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Feasibility and outcomes of robot-assisted partial splenectomy for benign splenic lesions: a single-center experience.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWhile laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) has been widely used in benign splenic tumor, more concerns have been raised for postoperatively short-term and long-term complications. Laparoscopic partial splenectomy (LPS) is a surgical option, to preserve splenic function, and reduce postoperative complications. The aim of our study was to retrospectively identify the safety and feasibility of LPS compared with LS in patients with splenic benign tumor. MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom 2014 to 2024, a total of 165 patients diagnosed with occupational splenic lesions underwent splenectomy, of whom 87 underwent LPS and 78 underwent LS. We compare the perioperative parameters and long term follow up between these two groups.
resultsThe etiology of splenic space-occupying lesions was nonparasitic splenic cysts, followed by splenic lymphangioma and splenic hemangioma. Of the patients with LPS, 55 underwent conventional surgery with blockage of the splenic arterial branch and resection along the ischemic line (RAIL), and 32 underwent with our modified total splenic blood supply blockade followed by resection alone the tumor edge (RATE). The tumor size, the operative time and estimated blood loss were comparable between the LPS and LS groups. One patient developed abnormal signs during the LPS procedure and was promptly referred for LS. The LPS group had fewer pancreatic leakage, incision infection, and pulmonary infection. As for different vascular types, patients with LS under all branches of the splenic artery had a longer time to resume postoperative feeding. As for the comparison of RAIL and RATE, estimated blood and operative time were significantly reduced in patients receiving RATE. Postoperative complications were the same in patients underwent each surgical procedures.
conclusionLPS is a viable approach for patients with splenic benign tumor. We introduce the tumor artery supply types to indicate the resection region. Our RATE technique has proven to be clinically effective and safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.