ArticleGastroenterology research and practice2026
Clinical Research Analysis and Application Value of the Laparoscopic Retroperitoneal Approach in In Situ Splenectomy.
Article in Gastroenterology research and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of the laparoscopic posterior approach in in situ splenectomy with those of traditional splenectomy. The primary indications for splenectomy in our cohort were splenomegaly and hypersplenism secondary to liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension, which is a common clinical scenario in our hepatobiliary surgery-centred hospital. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 58 patients who underwent splenectomy in our hospital. These were divided into 28 cases of laparoscopic posterior approach in situ splenectomy (posterior approach group) and 30 cases of traditional open splenectomy (open splenectomy group). Surgical indicators and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. Results: Intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay and time to drainage clearance were substantially lower in the posterior approach group compared with the open splenectomy group. There was no significant difference in operation time. Postoperative complications in the posterior approach group included fever (7 cases), ascites (14 cases), pancreatic leakage (0 cases), rebleeding (1 case), secondary abdominal infection (0 cases) and venous thrombosis (2 cases). These were fewer than in the open splenectomy group, which presented with 18 cases of fever, 24 of ascites, 7 of pancreatic leakage, 4 of rebleeding, 3 of secondary abdominal infection and 6 of venous thrombosis. Statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of pancreatic leakage, fever and ascites between the groups ( Conclusion: The laparoscopic retroperitoneal approach in in situ splenectomy demonstrates clear advantages over traditional splenectomy with respect to intraoperative performance and postoperative complications, offering improved safety and efficacy.
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.