Premium
Complications and short‐term outcomes associated with single‐port laparoscopic splenectomy in dogs
Author(s) -
Mayhew Philipp D.,
Sutton Jessie S.,
Singh Ameet,
Runge Jeffrey J.,
Case J. Brad,
Griffin Maureen A.,
Giuffrida Michelle A.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
veterinary surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.652
H-Index - 79
eISSN - 1532-950X
pISSN - 0161-3499
DOI - 10.1111/vsu.12752
Subject(s) - medicine , splenectomy , interquartile range , surgery , spleen , port (circuit theory) , odds ratio , confidence interval , body mass index , adhesion , laparoscopy , chemistry , organic chemistry , electrical engineering , engineering
Objective To describe a technique and report complications and outcome for single‐port laparoscopic splenectomy in dogs. Study Design Retrospective study. Animals Twenty‐two client‐owned dogs. Methods Medical records of dogs that underwent single‐port laparoscopic splenectomy at 4 veterinary teaching hospitals were evaluated. Commercially available single‐port devices were used in all dogs. In all cases, a vessel‐sealing device was used to perform a hilar splenectomy. After the procedure was completed, the spleen was exteriorized through the single‐port device incision or placed into a specimen retrieval device; enlargement of the incision was required in some cases. Results Median weight of dogs was 9.9 kg (interquartile range [IQR], 7.0‐26.0). Splenectomy was performed because of splenic mass (n = 14), diffuse splenic disease (n = 4), or as adjunctive treatment for management of immune‐mediated disease (n = 4). In cases with splenic masses, median maximal diameter of the largest splenic mass was 2.0 cm (IQR, 1.3‐2.5). In 6 of 22 cases, mild splenic capsular bleeding occurred during the procedure. Conversion occurred in 6 of 22 cases to either a laparoscopic‐assisted approach (n = 5) or an open celiotomy (n = 1). Reasons for conversion included large splenic dimensions (n = 3), adhesion formation (n = 1) or poor visualization resulting from abundant intra‐abdominal fat (n = 1) or hemorrhage (n = 1). Heavier body weight was significantly associated with conversion (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.05‐2.51), but body condition score, having a splenic mass, splenic mass size, and surgical time were not. Conclusion Single‐port laparoscopic splenectomy is an effective approach for elective splenectomy in dogs. The technique may be well suited to smaller dogs with modestly sized splenic masses or diffuse splenic disease.