 |
|
The Value of Splenic Preservation With Distal Pancreatectomy
Margo Shoup, MD;
Murray F. Brennan, MD;
Kertrisa McWhite, MD;
Denis H. Y. Leung, PhD;
David Klimstra, MD;
Kevin C. Conlon, MD, MBA
Arch Surg. 2002;137:164-168.
Hypothesis Splenic-preserving distal pancreatectomy for benign or low-grade malignant disease is associated with decreased perioperative morbidity compared with conventional distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy.
Design A retrospective review of a prospective database of patients.
Setting Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Patients All patients (N = 211) undergoing distal pancreatectomy.
Main Outcome Measures Perioperative complications, length of postoperative stay, and overall survival times were analyzed.
Results After excluding patients with adenocarcinoma and those who had other major organ resection, 125 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy for benign or low-grade malignant disease with splenectomy (n = 79) or splenic preservation (n = 46). Perioperative complications occurred in 39 (49%) of the 79 patients following splenectomy and 18 (39%) of the 46 patients following splenic preservation (P = .21). Perioperative infectious complications and severe complications were significantly higher in the splenectomy group (28% and 11%) compared with the splenic preservation group (9% and 2%) (P = .01 and .05), respectively. Length of hospital stay was 9 days (range, 5-41 days) following splenectomy and 7 days (range, 5-26 days) following splenic preservation (P<.01). No difference in length of surgery, units of blood transfused, or perioperative mortality was noted between groups.
Conclusions Splenic preservation following distal pancreatectomy for benign or low-grade malignant disease is safe and is associated with a reduction in perioperative infectious complications, severe complications, and length of hospital stay compared with conventional distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy. Therefore, splenic preservation should be considered in this group of patients.
From the Departments of Surgery (Drs Shoup, Brennan, McWhite, and Conlon), Biostatistics (Dr Leung), and Pathology (Dr Klimstra), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
RELATED ARTICLES
This Month in Archives of Surgery
Arch Surg. 2002;137(2):132.
FULL TEXT
Archives of Surgery Reader's Choice: Continuing Medical Education
Arch Surg. 2002;137(2):229-230.
FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Critical Appraisal of 232 Consecutive Distal Pancreatectomies With Emphasis on Risk Factors, Outcome, and Management of the Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula: A 21-Year Experience at a Single Institution
Goh et al.
Arch Surg 2008;143:956-965.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Single-Institution Prospective Study of Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resection
Sa Cunha et al.
Arch Surg 2008;143:289-295.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Noninvasive Pancreatic Cystic Neoplasms can be Safely and Effectively Treated by Limited Pancreatectomy
Tien et al.
Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2008;15:193-198.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Pancreatic Fistula After Distal Pancreatectomy: Predictive Risk Factors and Value of Conservative Treatment
Pannegeon et al.
Arch Surg 2006;141:1071-1076.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenic preservation for serous cystadenoma: a case report and literature review.
Aluka et al.
SURG INNOV 2006;13:94-101.
ABSTRACT
|
