Abstract
Background
The use of a laparoscopic hand-assist device may aid in the identification of accessory spleens (ASs) and provide similar benefits to a conventional laparoscopic procedure. A patient with previous splenectomy for immune thrombocytopenic pupusa (ITP) and recurrent thrombocytopenia is reported.
Method
A computed tomography scan and RBC scan identified several nodules consistent with ASs. Initial laparoscopic exploration could not identify all the ASs seen on preoperative imaging. A hand-assist device was placed and a total of five nodules of splenic tissue were identified without conversion to laparotomy.
Results
The patient had a brief and uncomplicated postoperative course with a return of platelet counts to 350,000 at 1-month follow-up.
Conclusion
We propose that in the scenario of recurrent ITP following laparoscopic splenectomy, repeat laparoscopy is the first step once an AS is identified by preoperative imaging. If the AS is not identified at laparoscopy, the insertion of a hand-assist device is an alternative to a full laparotomy.
As evidenced by a growing number of publications during the past 15 years, laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) has supplanted open splenectomy for the treatment of immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP). The transition in treatment was made to a minimal access approach relatively quickly, and it became clear from several large series that the procedure was safe, resulted in shortened hospital stay, and was effective in resolving thrombocytopenia [8, 12]. However as follow-up of ITP patients matured, several drawbacks to the laparoscopic procedure arose. The first concern is the incidence of missed accessory splenic tissue at the time of laparoscopy [5]. The other concern, which has been supported in an animal model [3], regards splenic injury or rupture at the time of LS, with resultant splenosis. Splenosis and missed accessory spleens are concerning because both have been postulated as causes for recurrent thrombocytopenia. Recommendations to avoid these two pitfalls include exploratory laparoscopy as an initial step to search for accessory spleens as well as exquisite care to avoid rupture and cell spillage [15]. In the case of recurrent ITP following LS, the only surgical option is reexploration and removal of accessory tissue, which has been performed laparoscopically and reported several times in the literature [2, 14, 16]. We describe the first published case of successful accessory splenectomy using a hand-assist device.
Case report
A 60-year-old female presented with recurrent thrombocytopenia secondary to ITP. At her initial presentation with ITP, she was treated medically and subsequently underwent splenectomy, which was performed at the age of 55. Her open operation was unremarkable and she had a recovery of her platelet counts to within normal limits. She presented 5 years later to her hematologist after noticing easy bruisability for several weeks, particularly on her legs. She was found to be thrombocytopenic and was given a course of steroids and intravenous gamma globulin. She had an initial response, with her platelet count rising to above 100,000/μl transiently and then dropping to less than 10,000/μl. A computed tomography (CT) scan of her abdomen (Fig. 1) and a liver/spleen scan were performed, which demonstrated the presence of four accessory spleens within the left upper quadrant. The patient was referred to the minimally invasive surgery service and underwent attempted laparoscopic accessory splenectomy.
Operative technique
On the morning of the operation, radiolabeled technetium was given intravenously to aid the intraoperative identification of splenic tissue. The patient was positioned supine under general anesthesia. Pneumoperitoneum was obtained with a Hasson trocar, and a 5-mm left lateral trocar was placed. After multiple adhesions were taken down, 12-mm ports were placed epigastrically and in the high left upper quadrant, with a 5-mm port laterally. Two nodules were found in a retrogastric location within the lesser sac. After dissection with an ultrasonic dissector, they were removed through a 12-mm port in an endoscopic bag. Despite an exhaustive search laparoscopically no additional nodules could be identified. The gamma camera could not localize the remaining splenic tissue seen on the preoperative imaging. A HandPort (Smith & Nephew Endoscopy, Andover, MA, USA) was placed, incorporating two trocar sites in the left upper quadrant, approximately 7 cm in length. Using this hand-assisted laparoscopy technique, three more nodules were palpable, and they were identified and removed in a similar fashion. Her postoperative course was uneventful, and she was discharged with a platelet count of 180,000/μl. Follow-up at 1 month showed the platelet level to be 350,000/μl. All of the nodules removed were subsequently confirmed to be splenic tissue on histology.
Discussion
As demonstrated by a number of published series, LS for ITP has been shown to be safe and associated with a low morbidity and good short-term outcomes [8, 12]. However, as follow-up has matured, it has become apparent that, as for open splenectomy, a subset of patients will develop recurrent disease [11]. The immediate platelet response (platelets >150,000/μl) following LS in ITP is expected to occur within the first 36 h postoperatively. In a series of 67 patients with ITP, Katkhouda et al. [9], found an immediate platelet response rate in 83% of patients, but with an average of 38 months of follow-up, the response rate decreased to 77%. These results are similar to those of other series [11]. Patients with recurrent thrombocytopenia who undergo reexploration can expect a variable platelet response rate of 20–73% [1, 15].
Several methods are available to the surgeon to help preoperatively localize splenic remnants. Radiolabeled, denatured, RBC spleen scanning has been promoted as the first investigation for recurrent thrombocytopenia to identify residual splenic tissue [10]. If splenic tissue is identified, consideration is then given for surgical excision. This test has been able to successfully identify and localize accessory splenic tissue in several published cases [2, 7, 16]. Furthermore, intraoperative use of nuclear imaging with a gamma probe provides real-time localization and allows confirmation of removal of the labeled splenic tissue [2, 7]. A hand-held gamma probe was utilized intraoperatively in our case, although it failed to localize the remaining splenic tissue subsequently found after insertion of the hand-assist device. CT scanning, used in conjunction with nuclear imaging, can similarly identify nodules consistent with splenic tissue, although this is less sensitive for smaller foci of splenic tissue.
In the operating room, laparoscopy affords good visualization but is hindered by the lack of sensitive tactile feedback that would allow detection of otherwise hidden splenic nodules. Other techniques, such as intraoperative ultrasound, may provide some benefit for identification of splenic nodules during laparoscopy but require surgeon experience and equipment availability. If laparoscopic exploration fails to detect the accessory spleen (AS) identified on preoperative imaging, few alternatives are available for the surgeon aside from laparotomy.
The rate of identification of accessory spleens at the time of open splenectomy for ITP has ranged from 18 to 40%. A wide range of ASs are similarly identified at the time of LS, ranging from 0 to 30% [15]. The inference that laparoscopy is inferior to open surgery in the detection of ASs is one possible explanation. The other, as suggested by Friederici [4], is that the difference in detection is related to the diligence of the surgeon. Regardless, the higher rate of detection found in some open splenectomy series suggests that manual palpation at open splenectomy is more sensitive than the indirect “palpation” with instruments at laparoscopy.
Although the best method for treatment of recurrent ITP is controversial, the feasibility of laparoscopic reexploration is clear [2, 16]. However, the disadvantage is that the same failed diagnostic technique, laparoscopy, is being used to identify the AS. The use of a hand-assist device increases the sensitivity of laparoscopy by allowing palpation for the nodule by the surgeon’s hand. As demonstrated by this case, only two nodules were identified by exhaustive laparoscopy, with three more splenic nodules identified only after placement of the hand-assist device.
We believe that the small incision (6 or 7 cm) for the hand-assist device, although larger than the incisions for laparoscopic access, results in less pain and earlier return to activity following surgery. There is evidence that the benefits of laparoscopic surgery are similar to those for hand-assisted surgery in other surgical procedures, such as colectomy and nephrectomy [6, 17]. Cases in which hand-assisted surgery has been utilized for splenectomy also show equitable postoperative outcomes with respect to hospital stay and pain medication use [13].
Although it may be argued that a hand-assist device may be used from the onset of the procedure in cases of laproscopic accessory splenectomy, we believe that ASs that are identified on CT or by other imaging may be amendable to a purely laproscopic excision. In cases in which the AS is not easily located at laparoscopy, as in our case, conversion to a hand-assisted approach would be the most appropriate step.
Conclusion
We propose that in the case of recurrent ITP following LS, repeat laparoscopy is the first step after Ass are identified by nuclear imaging or CT scan. At laparoscopy, a dedicated exploration for ASs should be made. If the ASs are not identified at laparoscopy, the insertion of a hand-assist device incorporating a port site is an alternative to a full laparotomy.
References
OE Akwari KMF Itani RE Coleman et al. (1987) ArticleTitleSplenectomy for primary and recurrent immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP). Ann Surg 206 529–541 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaL1c%2FitlSiug%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10.1097/00000658-198710000-00014
BJ Coventry DI Watson K Tucker et al. (1998) ArticleTitleIntra-operative localization and laparoscopic excision of accessory splenic tissue. Surg Endosc 12 159–161 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c7ktVelsw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10.1007/s004649900620
JJ Espert EM Targarona E Bombuy et al. (2001) ArticleTitleEvaluation of the risk of splenosis during laparoscopic splenectomy in a rat model. World J Surg 25 882–885 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MrisVGjug%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10.1007/s00268-001-0045-0
H Friederici (1979) ArticleTitleBorn again spleens. N Engl J Med 300 258
JF Gigot F Jamar A Ferrant et al. (1998) ArticleTitleInadequate detection of accessory spleens and splenosis with laparoscopic splenectomy. Surg Endosc 12 101–106 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c7ktVenug%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10.1007/s004649900607
group HALS study (2000) ArticleTitleHand-assisted laparoscopic surgery vs standard laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease, a prospective randomized trial. Surg Endosc 14 896–901 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s004640000324
RJ Hendrickson LG Koniaris SJ Kovach et al. (2002) ArticleTitleGamma probe confirmed laparoscopic accessory splenectomy. Surg Endosc . . Occurrence Handle12296313
N Katkhouda MB Hurwitz RT Rivera et al. (1998) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic splenectomy: outcome and efficacy in 103 consecutive patients. Ann Surg 228 568–578 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1M%2FgsFSjtA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10.1097/00000658-199810000-00013
N Katkhouda S Manhas TW Umbach et al. (2001) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic splenectomy. J Lap Adv Surg Tech 11 383–390 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD38%2Fos1GltA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10.1089/10926420152761914
KT Morris KD Horvath LL Jobe et al. (1999) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic management of accessory spleens in immune thrombocytopenic purpura. Surg Endosc 13 520–522 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1M3ksVOlsw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10.1007/s004649901026
DE Pace PM Chiasson CM Schlachta et al. (2003) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic splenectomy for idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP). Surg Endosc 17 95–98 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3s%2FmtFKjsQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10.1007/s00464-002-8805-y
AE Park G Birgisson MJ Mastrangelo (2000) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic splenectomy: outcomes and lessons learned from over 200 cases. Surgery 128 660–667 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M%2Fhsl2msA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10.1067/msy.2000.109065
M Rosen F Brody M Walsh et al. (2002) ArticleTitleHand-assisted laparoscopic splenectomy vs conventional laparoscopic splenectomy in cases of splenomegaly. Arch Surg 137 1348–1352 Occurrence Handle10.1001/archsurg.137.12.1348
A Szold M Kamat A Nadu et al. (2000) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic accessory splenectomy for recurrent ITP and hemolytic anemia. Surg Endosc 14 761–763 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3cvpvVCkuw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10.1007/s004640000209
EM Targarona JJ Espert C Balague et al. (1998) ArticleTitleResidual splenic function after laparoscopic splenectomy: a clinical concern. Arch Surg 133 56–60 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c%2FpvFGqug%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10.1001/archsurg.133.1.56
V Velanovich M Shurafa (2000) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic excision of accessory spleen. Am J Surg 180 62–64 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M%2FjsVaksw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0002-9610(00)00417-7
JS Wolf RM Merion AB Leichtman et al. (2001) ArticleTitleRandomized controlled trial of hand-assisted laparoscopic vs open surgical live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 72 284–290 Occurrence Handle10.1097/00007890-200107270-00021
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Sue Wheeler for her assistance in preparation of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kaban, G.K., Czerniach, D.R., Perugini, R.A. et al. Use of a laparoscopic hand-assist device for accessory splenectomy. Surg Endosc 18, 1001 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-003-4532-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-003-4532-2