Background: Laparoscopic splenectomy has become the gold-standard surgical approach for patients undergoing elective splenectomy. Little data exist concerning the technical difficulties of splenic retrieval. When the spleen is large, popular commercial retrieval bags are often too small to facilitate removal. The aim of this study was to compare our clinical experience utilizing two different retrieval bags, the Endocatch II (Autosuture, London, UK) and the developing E200 (Espiner Ltd., Bristol, UK).
Materials and methods: We performed a retrospective review of all laparoscopic splenectomies performed at Hull Royal Infirmary, Kingston upon Hull, from March 1997 to July 2003. Patient demographics, morbidity, mortality, and clinical outcome had been entered prospectively into a database. Two patient groups were examined, depending on the type of retrieval bag utilized. Complications and instrument failure during splenic retrieval were analysed.
Results: A total of 83 laparoscopic splenectomies were performed. No retrieval bag was used in 8 cases (10%). The Endocatch retrieval bag was used for 45 (60%) patients and the E200 for 30 (40%) patients. The mean operative time for the former group was 65 minutes (range, 50-127 minutes) and for the latter, 120 minutes (range, 80-180 minutes) (P < 0.05). Bag-related complications were 2 (4%) perforations and 2 (4%) failures to deploy while using the Endocatch bag.
Conclusion: The Endocatch bag is easy to deploy but is associated with perforation and cannot be used for large spleens. The E200 bag is more useful for large spleens but is associated with prolonged operative time due to poor maneuverability. Improved technology is still required.