Comparison of Spleen-Preservation Versus Splenectomy in Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND

Spleen-preservation during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) can be technically challenging and remains controversial. Our primary aim was to compare MIDP and splenectomy with spleen-preserving MIDP. Secondarily, we compared two spleen-preserving techniques.

METHODS

Adults undergoing MIDP (2007-2021) were retrospectively included in this single-center study. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between spleen-preservation and splenectomy and between the two spleen-preserving techniques were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous data, and Fisher's exact test for categorical data.

RESULTS

Of the 293 patients who underwent MIDP, preservation of the spleen was intended in 208 (71%) patients. Spleen-preservation was achieved in 174 patients (84%) via the Warshaw technique (130; 75%) or vessel-preservation (44; 25%). The spleen-preserving group had shorter length of stay (3 vs 4 days, p < 0.01), fewer conversions to open (1 vs 12, p < 0.01) and less blood loss (p < 0.01) compared to the splenectomy group. Operative (OR) times were comparable (229 vs 214 min, p = 0.67). Except for the operative time, which was longer for the Warshaw technique (245 vs 183 min, p = 0.01), no other differences between the two spleen-preserving techniques were found. At a median follow-up of 43 (IQR 18-79) months after spleen-preservation, only 2 (1.1%) patients had required splenectomy (1 partial splenectomy for infarct/abscess after Warshaw, 1 for variceal bleeding after vessel-preserving).

CONCLUSIONS

Spleen-preservation is not associated with increased risk of blood loss, longer hospital stay, conversion, nor lengthy OR times. Late splenectomy is very rarely required. Given the immune consequences of splenectomy, spleen-preservation should be strongly considered in MIDP.