Feasibility and Safety of Laparoscopic Partial Splenectomy: A Systematic Review
Laparoscopic partial splenectomy (LPS) is a challenging procedure. The aim of this review was to evaluate its feasibility, safety, and potential benefits.
We conducted a comprehensive review for the years 1995–2018 to retrieve all relevant articles.
A total of 44 studies with 252 patients undergoing LPS were reviewed. Six studies described combined operations. Ranges of operative time and estimated blood loss were 50–225 min and 0–1200 ml, respectively. There are eight patients need blood transfusion in 231 patients with available data. The conversion rate was 3.6% (9/252). Overall, 27 patients (10.7%;27/252) developed postoperative or intraoperative complications. Overall mortality was 0% (0/252). The length of postoperative stay (POS) varied (1–11 days). Among four comparative studies, one showed LPS could reduce POS than laparoscopic total splenectomy (LTS) (LTS 5.4 ± 1.8 days, LPS 4.2 ± 0.8 days, p = 0.027) and complications (pleural effusion (LTS 9/22, LPS 0/15, p = 0.005), splenic vein thrombosis (LTS 10/22, LPS 0/15, p = 0.002)). Another comparative study showed LPS may benefit emergency patients. However, one comparative study showed LPS was associated with more pain, longer time to oral intake, and longer POS in children with hereditary spherocytosis. The fourth comparative study showed robotic subtotal splenectomy was comparable to laparoscopy in terms of POS and complication. The main benefits were lower blood loss, vascular dissection time, and a better evaluation of splenic remnant volume.
In early series of highly selected patients, LPS appears to be feasible and safe when performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons.
Gangshan Liu contributed to literature research and manuscript preparation. Ying Fan contributed to literature research and approved the final version of manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
Dr. Liu and Dr. Fan have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this review.
- 1.Singer DB (1973) Postsplenectomysepsis. In: Anonymous: Perspectives in pediatric pathology, 1edn Year Book Medical Publishers, Chicago, pp 285–311Google Scholar
- 10.Uranüs S, Pfeifer J, Schauer C et al (1995) Laparoscopic partial splenic resection. Surg Laparosc Endosc 5:133–136Google Scholar
- 11.Poulin EC, Thibault C, DesCôteaux JG et al (1995) Partial laparoscopic splenectomy for trauma: technique and case report. Surg Laparosc Endosc 5:306–310Google Scholar
- 17.Hua F, Zhang D, Xin Z et al (2011) Laparoscopic partial splenectomy for large splenic epidermoid cyst. Chin Med J 124:1751–1753Google Scholar
- 24.Cai HH, An Y, Wu D et al (2016) Laparoscopic partial splenectomy: a preferred method for select patients. J Laparosc Adv Surg Tech 00:1–6Google Scholar
- 25.Corcione F, Cuccurullo D, Caiazzo P et al (2003) Laparoscopic partial splenectomy for a splenic pseudocyst. Surg Endosc 17:1850Google Scholar
- 45.Li H, Wei Y, Peng B et al (2017) Feasibility and safety of emergency laparoscopic partial splenectomy. Medicine 96:16Google Scholar
- 50.Zheng L, Deng C, Li J et al (2018) Treatment of hemangioma of the spleen by preoperative partial splenic embolization plus laparoscopic partial splenectomy: a case report. Medicine 97:17Google Scholar
- 52.Chen J, Shian Y, Longtang X (2018) Laparoscopic partial splenectomy: a safe and feasible treatment for splenic benign lesions. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 28:287–290Google Scholar
- 53.Tiron A, Vasilescu C (2008) Role of the spleen in immunity. Immunologic consequences of splenectomy. Chirurgia (Bucur) 103:255–263Google Scholar