Splenectomy for massive splenomegaly.

W W Coon

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 2772794

Splenectomy for massive splenomegaly.

W W Coon

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Several groups of authors have recently reported that removal of the massively enlarged spleen (1,500 grams or greater) is associated with a greater morbidity than that encountered in patients with spleens of smaller sizes. In our experience, 46 of 51 patients with massively enlarged spleens had a myeloproliferative disorder (leukemia, lymphoma or agnogenic myeloid metaplasia) and usually had a limited life expectancy. When morbidity in these patients was compared with that in patients with the same diagnosis but spleens of smaller size, no increase in complications or death was found other than a greater operative blood loss in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Limitation of operative morbidity in patients with very large spleens depends on careful selection and appropriate operative and perioperative management.

Explore related subjects

Evaluation Studies as Topic Female Humans Leukemia Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin Male Postoperative Complications Primary Myelofibrosis Prognosis Retrospective Studies Splenectomy Splenomegaly Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

W W Coon. 1989. Splenectomy for massive splenomegaly.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2772794/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Complex adaptive systems: a response to Luchins.

Luchins (2003, Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 31(2), 183-186) distinguishes the mutual strengths and shortcomings of qualitative and quantitative approaches as applied to the complexities of evaluation psychiatric hospital functioning in particular, and behavioral healthcare practice in general. This brief response offers an examination of the complex interplay of factors within non-linear models in a conceptualization of complex adaptive systems for understanding causal factors in mental health administration as well as calling into question the myth of the relationship between measurement and hence control and understanding and prediction.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗

PubMed2007

In search of a familial cancer risk assessment tool.

Approximately one in three individuals will be affected by cancer in their lifetime in the United States, and some are at elevated risk because of family history. Although assessment of family history of cancer and cancer risk is the standard of care, the current health-care system appears unable to meet this need. Because individuals are increasingly using the Internet, web-based cancer risk assessment tools (CRATs) may provide a way to meet this need. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the types of familial CRATs available on the Internet and their nature. The current review evaluated five CRATs identified through an Internet search based on (i) their ability to identify those at the highest risk of cancer (i.e. those with hereditary cancer syndromes), (ii) their strengths and limitations based on criteria adapted from Rich and colleagues (2004, 2005), (iii) their readability based on four readability calculations, and (iv) their quality based on criteria from Health on the Net. The general limitations of CRATs as a whole were also delineated, including concerns about availability to those who are poor and underserved and those who have lower levels of literacy. Recommendations for future tools include assessing risk for a greater number of diseases, using theoretically driven approaches to increase the likelihood that individuals will engage in appropriate health behaviors, and making a greater effort to reach diverse populations.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗

PubMed2007

Challenges in approaching metasynthesis research.

The overall aim of this study was to contribute to the development of metasynthesis through an analysis of the challenges involved. The study grew out of the critique of qualitative metaresearch raised by current developers of metamethodologies. Different views on the application of methodologies have emerged in the literature, contributing to confusion and ambiguity concerning the challenging questions of what, why, how, and who in metasynthesis research, which might increase the risk of misunderstanding. The roots of metasynthesis research are seen as multifaceted and influencing the development of the methods in different directions. The primary worth of metasynthesis is theoretical and/or methodological development (synthesis) combined with the potential for reflection: going beyond and behind the studies (meta). Metasynthesis research has also the potential to raise questions of research collaboration, culture, and language.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗