4.4 Review

Partial splenectomy: Who, when and how. A systematic review of the 2130 published cases

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
Volume 54, Issue 8, Pages 1527-1538

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2018.11.010

Keywords

Partial splenectomy; Subtotal splenectomy; Splenic disorders; Laparoscopy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Purpose: In order to avoid consequences of total splenectomy (including severe postsplenectomy sepsis), partial splenectomy (PS) is increasingly reported. Without guidelines and indications concerning a rarely-indicated procedure, a review of literature should be an asset. Methods: A systematic review of all PSs from 1960 to December 2017 was performed, with special focus on surgical indications, sites of resection, approaches and techniques of vascular dissection and parenchymal section/hemostasis of the spleen, perioperative morbidity/mortality, including complications compelling to perform total splenectomy. Results: Among 2130 PSs, indications for resection were hematological disease in 1013 cases and nonhematological conditions in 1078, including various tumors in 142 and trauma in 184. Parenchymal transeclion was performed using several techniques through the years, most frequently after having induced partial ischemia by splenic hilum vascular dissection/ligation. 371 laparoscopic/robotic PSs were reported. Rescue total splenectomy was required in 75 patients. Conclusions: Although good results are probably overestimated by such a retrospective review, PS should be considered as a procedure associated with a low morbidity/mortality. Nevertheless, severe complications are also reported, and the need of total splenectomy should not to be minimized. Laparoscopic/robotic procedures are increasingly performed, with good results and rare conversions. Type of study: Systematic review. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available