Abdominal wound tumor recurrence after open and laparoscopic-assisted splenectomy in a murine model

PURPOSE: The cause of abdominal wall tumor recurrences after laparoscopic surgery for cancer remains unknown. A recent study from our laboratory using a murine splenic tumor model suggests that poor surgical technique (i.e., crushing of the tumor) and not the CO2 pneumoperitoneum is responsible for port wound tumors. However, in that experiment no actual laparoscopic procedure or manipulation was performed. The purpose of the current study was to determine the rate of abdominal wound tumors after laparoscopic-assisted splenectomy performedvia a CO2 pneumoperitoneumvs. open splenectomy using the mouse splenic tumor model. METHODS: To establish splenic tumors, female BALB/c mice (N=72) were given subcapsular splenic injections of a 0.1-ml suspension containing 105 C-26 colon adenocarcinoma cellsvia a left flank incision at the initial procedure. Eight days later, animals were randomized into one of two groups: 1) laparoscopic-assisted splenectomy, or 2) open splenectomy. Laparoscopic-assisted splenectomy animals had three laparoscopic ports placed and then underwent laparoscopic mobilization of the spleen under a CO2 pneumoperitoneum followed by extracorporeal splenectomyvia a subcostal incision. Group 2 animals underwent open splenectomyvia a subcostal incision after three port incisions were made in the same locations as for laparoscopic-assisted splenectomy mice. The incision was closed after 20 minutes in both groups. Ten days later, the mice were killed and inspected for abdominal wall tumor implants. The experiment was performedvia two separate trials. RESULTS: When results of the two trials were combined, there was no significant difference in the incidence of animals in each group with at least 1 port tumor (open, 21 percent; laparoscopic-assisted splenectomy, 33 percent;P=0.14). However, the overall incidence of port site tumors (number of ports with tumors/total number of ports for each group) was significantly higher in the laparoscopic-assisted splenectomy group than in the open group (20vs. 7 percent;P=0.01). The subcostal incisional tumor recurrence rate was also higher in the laparoscopic-assisted splenectomy group (50vs. 21 percent;P=0.02). as was the perioperative mortality rate (21vs. 7 percent;P=0.08). Results of the two individual trials were also considered separately. The incidence of port wound tumors decreased significantly from the first to the second laparoscopic-assisted splenectomy trial (36vs. 9 percent;P=0.003), although the incidence of tumors at the subcostal incision and the mortality rate for the two laparoscopic-assisted splenectomy group trials were not significantly different. The open group tumor incidences did not change from trial to trial. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, significantly more port and incisional tumors were noted in the laparoscopic-assisted group. Although not statistically significant, mortality rate of the laparoscopic-assisted group was higher than the open group. The reasons for these findings are unclear. Laparoscopic mobilization was quite difficult and required excessive splenic manipulation, which may have liberated tumor cells from the primary tumor and facilitated port tumor formation. With increased experience, less manipulation was required to complete mobilization. Of note, the incidence of port tumors in the laparoscopic-assisted splenectomy group decreased significantly from the first to the second trials; therefore, it is possible that surgical technique is a factor in port tumor formation. However, the persistently high tumor incidence at the subcostal incision site argues against the hypothesis that the second trial's laparoscopic mobilizations were less traumatic. The CO2 pneumoperitoneum may also be a factor. Further studies are warranted to clarify these issues.