4.1 Article

Late Results After Splenectomy in Adult Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura

Publisher

SOC LAPAROENDOSCOPIC SURGEONS
DOI: 10.4293/JSLS.2013.00272

Keywords

Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura; Splenectomy; Laparoscopic splenectomy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: We performed a retrospective study on patients with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) to evaluate the response to splenectomy in relation to preoperative platelet count. Materials and Methods: Two groups of patients operated on with laparoscopic or open splenectomy for ITP, with a platelet count <= 30,000/mu L (study group: 22 patients) and >30,000/mu L (control group: 18 patients), respectively, were compared. The two groups were homogeneous in relation to age, sex, length of preoperative steroid therapy, and time interval between diagnosis and surgery (Student t test with P > .1). The results of surgery were evaluated at one year after splenectomy. Positive response to surgery, according to the American Society of Hematologic Guidelines, was considered in patients with a postoperative platelet count >= 100,000/mu L or in patients with a postoperative platelet count >= 30,000/mu L and a twofold increase in platelet count from baseline, in the absence of bleeding. The postoperative platelet count increase rate was statistically related to preoperative platelet count in both the study and control groups. Statistical analysis was performed using the Student's t test for independent sample and the Pearson correlation in a 2-tailed test. Results: No relationship between preoperative platelet count and postoperative platelet percent increase was observed in the control group (r = -0.41; P = .089), whereas a significant negative correlation (r = -0.68; P = .0004) was found in the study group. Conclusions: A higher increase of postoperative percent platelet count may be predicted in patients with a low preoperative platelet count.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available