Skip to main content
Log in

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenic preservation

  • Technique
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The technique of distal pancreatectomy has been well described, both with en bloc resection of the spleen and with splenic preservation. Splenic preservation during pancreatic tail resection is desirable when oncologically appropriate, yet it is technically challenging, particularly with laparoscopic approaches. Skeletonization of the splenic artery and vein is associated with longer operative times and greater potential for bleeding. The authors report their experience with splenic preservation during laparoscopic pancreatic resection using ligation of the splenic vessels and preservation of the short gastric vessels.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed for all patients who underwent attempted laparoscopic pancreatic resection at Duke University Medical Center from July 2002 to October 2005. Charts were analyzed for demographic information, length of hospital stay, conversion, splenic preservation, and postoperative complications.

Results

A total of 12 laparoscopic distal pancreatic resections were attempted for three men and nine women with a mean age was 55.8 years (range, 33–74 years). All 12 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy, 8 with splenic preservation. The spleen was removed from three patients using splenic hilar lesions that prevented splenic salvage. One patient required splenectomy secondary to more than 50% ischemia of the spleen. No patients with preoperatively diagnosed malignancy underwent splenic salvage. The final pathologic diagnosis included neuroendocrine tumors (n = 2), cystic serous (n = 4) and mucinous (n = 2) neoplasms, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) (n = 1), pancreatitis (n = 2), and adenocarcinoma (n = 1). Two patients underwent conversion to open surgery for thickened parenchyma secondary to chronic pancreatitis (17%). There were no other conversions. There were three chemical leaks (25%) diagnosed by elevated drain amylase and low volume output, which were managed with intraoperatively placed drains removed at the initial postoperative clinic visit. There were three higher volume leaks (25%) that required extended or percutaneous drainage, with eventual removal. The average blood loss was 215 ml (range, 50–700 ml). The average operative time was 3 h and 41 min (range, 2 h 15 min to 5 h 58 min). The average length of hospital stay was 4 days (range, 2–7 days).

Conclusion

Splenic preservation should be performed when technically possible to decrease the morbidity of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. The choice to ligate the splenic vessels allows for shorter operative times with minimal perioperative morbidity and blood loss while maintaining the spleen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. de Buys Roessingh AS, deLagausie P (2002) Follow-up of Partial Splenectomy on Children with Hereditary Spherocytosis. J Ped Surg 37:1459–1463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gagner M, Pomp A, Herrera MF (1996) Early experience with laparoscopic resections of islet cell tumors. Surgery 120:1051–1054

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hanly EJ, Mendoza-Sagaon JM (2004) New tools for laparoscopic division of the pancreas: A comparative animal study. Surg Laparos Endosc Percutan Tech 14:53–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Killeen KL, Shanmuganathan K (2001) CT findings after embolization for blunt splenic trauma. J Vasc Inter Radiol 12:209–214

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lillemoe K, Cameron JL (2004) Does fibrin glue sealant decrease the rate of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy? Results of a prospective randomized trial. J Gastrointestin Surg 8:766–774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Liu P, Lee W (2004) Use of splenic artery embolization as an adjunct to nonsurgical management of blunt splenic injury. J Trauma 56:768–773

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lukish Jr, Rothstein JH (1999) Spleen-preserving pancreatectomy for cystic pancreatic neoplasms. Am Surg 65: 596–599

  8. Mabrut JY, Fernandez-Cruz L (2005) Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: results of a multicenter European study of 127 patients. Surgery 137:597–605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pandey SK, Bhattacharya S (2004) Anatomical variations of the splenic artery and its clinical implications. Clin Anat 17:497–502

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Park AE, Heniford BT (2002) Therapeutic laparoscopy of the pancreas. Ann Surg 236:149–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Patterson EJ, Gagner M (2001) Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: single-institution experience of 19 patients. J Am Coll Surg 193:281–287

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. SatoY, Shimoda S (2000) Evaluation of splenic circulation after spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy by dividing the splenic artery and vein. Dig Surg 17:519–522

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schwalke MA, Crowley JP (1991) Splenic artery ligation for splenic salvage: clinical experience and immune function. J Trauma 31:385–388

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shoupe M, Brennan MF (2002) The value of splenic preservation with distal pancreatectomy. Arch Surg 137:164–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Warshaw AL (1988) Conservation of the spleen with distal pancreatectomy. Arch Surg 123:550–553

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. R. Means.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pryor, A., Means, J.R. & Pappas, T.N. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenic preservation. Surg Endosc 21, 2326–2330 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9403-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9403-9

Keywords

Navigation