Clinical Outcomes of Splenic Artery Embolization Versus Splenectomy in the Management of Hemodynamically Stable High-Grade Blunt Splenic Injuries: A National Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to compare the outcomes of splenic artery embolization (SAE) versus splenectomy in adult trauma patients with high-grade blunt splenic injuries. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database (2017-2021) compared SAE versus splenectomy in adults with blunt high-grade splenic injuries (grade ≥ IV). Patients were stratified first by hemodynamic status then splenic injury grade. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit length of stay (ICU-LOS), and transfusion requirements at four and 24 h from arrival. RESULTS: Three thousand one hundred nine hemodynamically stable patients were analyzed, with 2975 (95.7%) undergoing splenectomy and 134 (4.3%) with SAE. One thousand eight hundred sixty five patients had grade IV splenic injuries, and 1244 had grade V. Patients managed with SAE had 72% lower odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.28; P = 0.002), significantly shorter ICU-LOS (7 versus 9 d, 95%, P = 0.028), and received a mean of 1606 mL less packed red blood cells at four h compared to those undergoing splenectomy. Patients with grade IV or V injuries both had significantly lower odds of mortality (IV: OR 0.153, P < 0.001; V: OR 0.365, P = 0.041) and were given less packed red blood cells within four h when treated with SAE (2056 mL versus 405 mL, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: SAE may be a safer and more effective management approach for hemodynamically stable adult trauma patients with high-grade blunt splenic injuries, as demonstrated by its association with significantly lower rates of in-hospital mortality, shorter ICU-LOS, and lower transfusion requirements compared to splenectomy.

Splenectomy as a part of cytoreductive surgery in ovarian cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The role of splenectomy on cytoreductive surgery in patients with ovarian cancer remains controversial. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and impact of survival outcome of splenectomy in patients with ovarian cancer. METHODS: In this meta-analysis we analyzed studies published in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and Clinical Trials. gov that appeared in our search from inception to November 10, 2023. RESULT: This meta-analysis included 10 studies, totaling 6297 patients, comprising one prospective and nine retrospective analyses. The results indicated no significant disparity in overall survival and mortality (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.87, p=0.62) between the splenectomy cohort and the no splenectomy (required) cohort. Furthermore, relative to the no splenectomy (required) cohort, the splenectomy group showed a heightened incidence of overall post-operative complications (odds ratio (OR) 1.66, 95% CI 1.65 to 2.61, p=0.03), an extended duration of hospitalization (mean difference (MD) 2.88 days, 95% CI 2.09 to 3.67), an increased interval from surgery to the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy (MD 4.44 days, 95% CI 2.41 to 6.07, p<0.0001), and a greater probability of undergoing reoperation (OR 4.7, 95% CI 1.91 to 11.55, p=0.0007). However, concerning the occurrence of specific post-operative complications such as anastomotic leakage (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.84, p=0.95), pancreatic fistula (OR 3.25, 95% CI 0.63 to 16.7, p=0.16), abdominal abscess (OR 1.75, 95% CI 0.25 to 12.33, p=0.57), sepsis (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.77, p=0.25), and thrombotic events (OR 1.82, 95% CI 0.93 to 3.57, p=0.08), no significant differences were observed between the two cohorts. CONCLUSION: Splenectomy does not impact the overall survival and mortality of patients with ovarian cancer. Thus, it can be considered an acceptably safe procedure to obtain optimal cytoreduction. However, caution should be taken when selecting patients for splenectomy because it is associated with an increased incidence of overall post-operative complications, prolonged hospital stays, delayed initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy, and an increased probability of requiring subsequent surgical interventions.

Sclerosing angiomatoid nodular transformation of the spleen: Case reports and literature review.

RATIONALE: Sclerosing angiomatoid nodular transformation (SANT) of the spleen is an uncommon benign vascular lesion with an obscure etiology. It predominantly affects middle-aged women and presents with nonspecific clinical signs, making preoperative diagnosis challenging. The definitive diagnosis of SANT relies on pathological examination following splenectomy. This study aims to contribute to the understanding of SANT by presenting a case series and reviewing the literature to highlight the clinical presentation, diagnostic challenges, and treatment outcomes. PATIENT CONCERNS: In this retrospective study, we analyzed the clinical data of 3 patients with confirmed SANT admitted from November 2013 to October 2023. The cases include a 25-year-old male, a 15-year-old female, and a 39-year-old male, each with a splenic mass. DIAGNOSES AND INTERVENTIONS: All of the three cases were treated by laparoscopic splenectomy (LS). Pathological examination confirmed SANT in all cases. OUTCOMES: No recurrence or metastasis was observed during a 10-year follow-up for the first 2 cases, and the third case showed no abnormalities at 2 months postoperatively. Despite its rarity, SANT is a significant condition due to its potential for misdiagnosis and the importance of distinguishing it from malignant lesions. The study underscores the utility of LS as a safe and effective treatment option. LESSONS: SANT is a rare benign tumor of the spleen, and the preoperative diagnosis of whom is challenging. LS is a safe and effective treatment for SANT, with satisfactory surgical outcomes and favorable long-term prognosis on follow-up. The study contributes to the limited body of research on this rare condition and calls for larger studies to validate these findings and improve clinical management.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: A propensity score matched multicentric comparative French study.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery has gained momentum for left pancreatic resections. However, debate remains about whether it has any advantage over open surgery for distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. METHODS: This retrospective review examined pancreatectomies performed for resectable pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors at 21 centers in France between January 2014 and December 2018. Short and long-term outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching based on tumor size, sex, age, body mass index, center, and method of pancreatic transection. RESULTS: During the period study, 274 patients underwent left pancreatic resection for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors [109 underwent distal splenopancreatectomy, and 165 underwent spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy [(splenic vessel preservation (n = 97; 58.7%)/splenic vessel resection (n = 68; 41.3%)]. Before propensity score matching, minimally invasive surgery was associated with a lower rate of major morbidity (P = .004), lower rate of postoperative delayed gastric emptying (P = .04), and higher rate of "textbook" outcomes (P = .04). After propensity score matching, there were 2 groups of 54 patients (n = 30 distal splenopancreatectomy; n = 78 spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy). Minimally invasive surgery was associated with less blood loss (P = .05), decreased rate of major morbidity (6% vs. 24%; P = .02), less delayed gastric emptying (P = .05) despite similar rates of postoperative fistula, hemorrhage, and reoperation (P > .05). The 5-year overall survival (79% vs. 75%; P = .74) and recurrence-free survival (10% vs 17%; P = .39) were similar. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive surgery for left pancreatic resection can be safely proposed for patients with resectable left pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Minimally invasive surgery decreases the rate of major complications while providing comparable long-term oncologic outcomes.

Evaluating the efficacy of laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy in selected early-stage left-sided pancreatic cancer: a propensity score matching study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic radical pancreatectomy is safe and beneficial for recectable pancreatic cancer, but the extent of resection for early-stage tumors remains controversial. METHODS: Consecutive patients with left-sided pancreatic cancer who underwent either laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (LRAMPS, n = 54) or laparoscopic distal pancreatosplecnectomy (LDP, n = 131) between October 2020 and December 2022 were reviewed. The preoperative radiological selection criteria were as follows: (1) tumor diameter ≤ 4 cm; (2) located ≥ 1 cm from the celiac trunk; (3) didn't invade the fascial layer behind the pancreas. RESULTS: After 1:1 propensity score matching (LRAMPS, n = 54; LDP, n = 54), baseline data were well-balanced with no differences. LRAMPS resulted in longer operation time (240.5 vs. 219.0 min, P = 0.020) and higher intraoperative bleeding volume (200 vs. 150 mL, P = 0.001) compared to LDP. Although LRAMPS harvested more lymph nodes (16 vs. 13, P = 0.008), there were no statistically significant differences in lymph node positivity rate (35.2% vs. 33.3%), R0 pancreatic transection margin (94.4% vs. 96.3%), and retroperitoneal margin (83.3% vs. 87.0%) rate. Postoperative complications did not significantly differ between the two groups. However, LRAMPS was associated with increased drainage volume (85.0 vs. 40.0 mL, P = 0.001), longer time to recover semi-liquid diet compared to LDP (5 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001) and increased daily bowel movement frequency. Tumor recurrence pattern and recurrence-free survival were comparable between the two groups, but the adjuvant chemotherapy regimens varied, and the completion rate of the 6-month intravenous chemotherapy was lower in the LRAMPS group compared to the LDP group (51.9% vs. 75.9%, P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: LRAMPS did not provide oncological benefits over LDP for left-sided pancreatic cancer within the selection criteria, but it increased operation time, intraoperative bleeding, and postoperative bowel movement frequency. These factors impacted the regimen selection and completion of adjuvant chemotherapy, consequently compromising the potential benefits of LRAMPS in achieving better local control.

Innovative statistical approaches: the use of neural networks reduces the sample size in the splenectomy-MCAO mouse model.

AIM: To compare the effectiveness of artificial neural network (ANN) and traditional statistical analysis on identical data sets within the splenectomy-middle carotid artery occlusion (MCAO) mouse model. METHODS: Mice were divided into the splenectomized (SPLX) and sham-operated (SPLX-sham) group. A splenectomy was conducted 14 days before middle carotid artery occlusion (MCAO). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), bioluminescent imaging, neurological scoring (NS), and histological analysis, were conducted at two, four, seven, and 28 days after MCAO. Frequentist statistical analyses and ANN analysis employing a multi-layer perceptron architecture were performed to assess the probability of discriminating between SPLX and SPLX-sham mice. RESULTS: Repeated measures ANOVA showed no significant differences in body weight (F (5, 45)=0.696, P=0.629), NS (F (2.024, 18.218)=1.032, P=0.377) and brain infarct size on MRI between the SPLX and SPLX-sham groups post-MCAO (F (2, 24)=0.267, P=0.768). ANN analysis was employed to predict SPLX and SPL-sham classes. The highest accuracy in predicting SPLX class was observed when the model was trained on a data set containing all variables (0.7736±0.0234). For SPL-sham class, the highest accuracy was achieved when it was trained on a data set excluding the variable combination MR contralateral/animal mass/NS (0.9284±0.0366). CONCLUSION: This study validated the neuroprotective impact of splenectomy in an MCAO model using ANN for data analysis with a reduced animal sample size, demonstrating the potential for leveraging advanced statistical methods to minimize sample sizes in experimental biomedical research.

The Decline of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Splenectomies: A Single Center Experience.

Background: Splenectomy has been performed for various indications from haematological diseases to benign cysts and tumours, and for splenic traumatic injuries. However, there has been a steady decline in splenectomies in the last 20 years. The aim of this study is to establish the reasons behind this decline in splenectomy and to analyse them based on indication, type of splenectomy, and manner of approach (open, laparoscopic or robotic). Material and Methods: This is a retrospective study of a single centre experience of all the splenectomies, both total and partial, performed in the Department of General Surgery of Fundeni Clinical Institute (Bucharest) between 2002 and 2023. Only surgeries for primary splenic diseases were selected, splenic resections as part of other major operations were not included. Results: Between 2002 and 2023, 876 splenectomies were performed in the Department of General Surgery of Fundeni Clinical Institute (Bucharest). Most splenectomies (n=245) were performed for immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), followed by benign tumours and cysts (n=136), lymphoma (n=119), hypersplenism due to cirrhosis (n=107) and microspherocytosis (n=95). Other indications included myelodysplastic syndrome (n=39), trauma (n=35), thalassemia (n=22), leukaemia (n=18) and also there were 60 splenectomies that were performed for hypersplenism of unknown cause. There were 795 total splenectomies (TS) and 81 partial splenectomies (PS). There was a decline in the number of splenectomies both TS and PS for all these indications, most notably in the case of ITP, microspherocytosis and hypersplenism due to cirrhosis with no splenectomies performed for these indications since 2020. Conclusion: With the development of new lines of treatment, advances in interventional radiology and in surgery with the spleen parenchyma sparing options, the need for total splenectomy has been greatly reduced which is reflected in the decline in the number of splenectomies performed in the last 20 years in our clinic.

Peripancreatic fluid collections following distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy-when is intervention warranted?

BACKGROUND: Peripancreatic fluid collections after distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy are commonly identified on postoperative cross-sectional imaging. This study aimed to determine the incidence, natural history, and indications for intervention. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patients with peripancreatic fluid collections after distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy between 2013 and 2018, approved by our institutional review board. The chi-square test was used for categorical variables, the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables, and Fisher's exact test was used for values in which the sample size was less than 5 to compare data. RESULTS: During the study period, 235 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy, and 182 patients with postoperative imaging were included. In the cohort of patients with postoperative imaging, 83 (46%) had peripancreatic fluid collections, of which 46 (55%) were symptomatic fluid collections (SFCs) and 37 (45%) were asymptomatic fluid collections (AFCs). Those with SFC had a higher incidence of postoperative morbidity (46% vs 8%; P = .0002), most commonly postoperative pancreatic fistula (90%). Of patients with SFC, 34 (74%) underwent treatment via percutaneous drainage (n = 26), endoscopic drainage (n = 7), or antibiotics alone (n = 1). AFCs (n = 37) were observed. Collections that were intervened upon resolved significantly faster than those observed, 3.5 months vs 13.2 months (P < .0001), respectively. CONCLUSION: Asymptomatic patients may be observed with or without serial imaging and the AFC will typically resolve spontaneously with time. Patients who develop symptoms should generally be intervened upon with drainage if deemed feasible, given that this reduces the time to resolution.

Splenectomy versus splenic preservation in total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing survival benefits and short-term complications.

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing debate regarding the comparative merits of splenectomy (SP) and splenic preservation in the surgical management of gastric cancer. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to shed light on potential differences in survival outcomes and postoperative complications associated with these two procedures. METHOD: An exhaustive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, namely PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. We utilized a random-effects model via RevMan 5.4 software to conduct a meta-analysis of the hazard ratios (HRs) and risk ratios (RRs) associated with SP and spleen preservation. Subgroup analyses were based on various attributes of the included studies. We employed funnel plots to assess publication bias, and sensitivity analysis was conducted to gauge the stability of the combined results. Both funnel plots and sensitivity analysis were performed using Stata 12. RESULT: Our research incorporated 23 observational studies and three randomized controlled trials, involving a total of 6,255 patients. SP did not yield superior survival outcomes in comparison to splenic preservation, a conclusion that aligns with the combined results of the randomized controlled trials. No statistically significant difference in survival prognosis was observed between SP and splenic preservation, irrespective of whether the patients had proximal gastric cancer or proximal gastric cancer invading the stomach's greater curvature. SP exhibited a higher incidence of all postoperative complications, notably pancreatic fistula and intraabdominal abscesses. However, it did not significantly differ from splenic preservation in terms of anastomotic leakage, incision infection, intestinal obstruction, intra-abdominal bleeding, and pulmonary infection. No significant difference in postoperative mortality between SP and splenic preservation was found. Funnel plots suggested no notable publication bias, and sensitivity analysis affirmed the stability of the combined outcomes. CONCLUSION: Despite the lack of significant differences in certain individual complications and postoperative mortality, the broader pattern of our data suggests that SP is associated with a greater overall frequency of postoperative complications, without providing additional survival benefits compared to splenic preservation. Thus, the routine implementation of SP is not advocated.

When doctors perform surgery for gastric (stomach) cancer, they sometimes remove the spleen, a procedure known as splenectomy (SP). However, there's a debate on whether removing the spleen is better than preserving it. Our study aimed to compare these two methods in terms of patient survival and the risk of complications after surgery. To do this, we looked at data from 26 studies involving 6,255 patients. Our analysis was thorough, using advanced statistical methods to ensure accuracy. Here's what we found: patients who had their spleen removed did not live longer than those who kept their spleen. Whether the cancer was just in the upper part of the stomach or had spread to the nearby large curve of the stomach, the survival rates were similar for both groups. Patients who underwent SP faced more postoperative complications, especially issues like pancreatic fistula and intra-abdominal abscesses. However, for some complications like leakage from the surgical joint, infection of the wound, bowel obstruction, internal bleeding, and lung infections, there was no significant difference between the two groups. The chances of dying post-surgery were similar whether patients had their spleen removed or not. Our findings suggest that routinely removing the spleen during gastric cancer surgery does not improve survival rates and is linked to more postoperative complications. Therefore, it may be better to avoid removing the spleen unless absolutely necessary.

Clinical factors and outcomes of spleen-conserving surgery versus total splenectomy in splenic injuries: A nationwide database study.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to identify factors associated with the use of spleen-conserving surgeries, as well as patient outcomes, on a national scale. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study (2010-2015) included patients (age≥16 years) with splenic injury in the National Trauma Data Bank. Patients who received a total splenectomy or a spleen-conserving surgery were compared for demographics and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: During the study period, 18,425 received a total splenectomy and 1,825 received a spleen-conserving surgery. Total splenectomy was more likely to be performed for patients with age>65 (odds ratio [OR]: 0.63, p â€‹< â€‹0.001), systolic blood pressure<90 (OR: 0.63, p â€‹< â€‹0.001), heart rate>120 (OR: 0.83, p â€‹= â€‹0.007), and high-grade injuries (OR: 0.18, p â€‹< â€‹0.001). Penetrating trauma patients were more likely to undergo a spleen-conserving surgery (OR: 3.31, p â€‹< â€‹0.001). The use of spleen-conserving surgery was associated with a lower risk of pneumonia (OR: 0.79, p â€‹= â€‹0.009) and venous thromboembolism (OR: 0.72, p â€‹= â€‹0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Spleen-conserving surgeries may be considered for patients with penetrating trauma, age<65, hemodynamic stability, and low-grade injuries. Spleen-conserving surgeries have decreased risk of pneumonia and venous thromboembolism.

Distal Pancreatectomy for Body Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Is Splenectomy Necessary? A Propensity Score Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: The value of splenectomy for body localization (≥ 5 cm from spleen hilum) of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (B-PDAC) is uncertain. This study assessed spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) results for B-PDAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-center study included patients who underwent SPDP (Warshaw's technique) or distal splenopancreactomy (DSP) for B-PDAC from 2008 to 2019. Propensity score matching was performed to balance SPDP and DSP patients regarding sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), body mass index (BMI), laparoscopy, pathological features [American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/tumor node metastasis classification (TNM)], margins, and neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapies. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients (64 male, median age 68 years, median BMI 24 kg/m2) were enrolled with a median follow-up of 63 months (95% CI 52-96 months), including 59 (46%) SPDP and 70 (54%) DSP patients. A total of 39 SPDP patients were matched to 39 DSP patients. SPDP patients had fewer harvested nodes (19 vs 22; p = 0.038) with a similar number of positive nodes (0 vs 0; p = 0.237). R0 margins were achieved similarly in SPDP and DSP patients (75% vs 71%; p = 0.840). SPDP patients were associated with decreased comprehensive complication index (CCI, 8.7 vs 16.6; p = 0.004), rates of grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF, 14% vs 29%; p = 0.047), and hospital stay (11 vs 16 days; p < 0.001). SPDP patients experienced similar disease-free survival (DFS, 5 years: 38% vs 32%; p = 0.180) and overall survival (OS, 5 years 54% vs 44%; p = 0.710). After matching, SPDP patients remained associated with lower CCI (p = 0.034) and hospital stay (p = 0.028) while not associated with risks of local recurrence (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.28-2.62; p = 0.781), recurrence (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.61-1.78; p = 0.888), or death (HR 1.20; 95% CI 0.68-2.11; p = 0.556). CONCLUSION: SPDP for B-PDAC is associated with less postoperative morbidity than DSP, without impairing oncological outcomes.

Weighing the outcomes: the role of BMI in complex robotic esophageal and hepatobiliary operations.

BACKGROUND: The correlation between body mass index (BMI) and surgical outcomes has emerged as a critical consideration in complex abdominal operations. While elevated BMI is often associated with increased perioperative risk, its specific effects on the outcomes of robotic surgeries remain inadequately explored. This study assesses the impact of BMI on perioperative variables of complex esophageal and hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) robotic operations. METHODS: Following IRB approval, we prospectively followed 607 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, trans-hiatal esophagectomy (THE), major liver resection or distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy, all performed robotically. Perioperative data retrieved included operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), intraoperative and postoperative complications, conversions to an 'open' operation and length of stay (LOS). Z scores were assigned to each variable to standardize operations, and the variables were then regressed against BMI. For illustrative purposes, data are presented as median(mean ± standard deviation). RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2020, surgeries included 71 THE, 122 distal pancreatectomies with splenectomies, 129 major hepatectomies and 285 pancreaticoduodenectomies. Median age was 67(65 ± 12.5) years old, and BMI was 27(28 ± 5.5) kg/m2. Operative duration for all operations was 349(355 ± 124.5) min and had a positive correlation with increasing BMI (p = 0.004), specifically for robotic THE and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy, with both operative durations having positive correlation with increasing BMI (p = 0.02 and p = 0.05). No significant correlation with BMI was found for EBL, intraoperative or postoperative complications, conversion to 'open' surgery, or LOS. CONCLUSION: Elevated BMI is associated with longer operative durations in select robotic surgeries, such as trans-hiatal esophagectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy, and highlights the need for strategic planning in these patients.

What Are Risk Factors for Graft Loss in Patients Who Underwent Simultaneous Splenectomy During Living-donor Liver Transplantation?

BACKGROUND: The consensus that portal venous pressure modulation, including splenectomy (Spx), prevents portal hypertension-related complications after living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been established. However, little evidence about the risk factors for graft loss after simultaneous Spx during LDLT is available. This study aimed to identify the independent predictors of graft loss after simultaneous Spx during LDLT. METHODS: Data of 655 recipients who underwent LDLT between 1997 and 2021 were collected and separated into the simultaneous Spx group (n = 461) and no-Spx group (n = 194). RESULTS: The simultaneous Spx group had significantly lower serum total bilirubin levels, drained ascites volumes, and prothrombin time-international normalized ratios on postoperative day 14 than the no-Spx group ( P < 0.001 for each). Incidences of small-for-size graft syndrome ( P < 0.001), acute cellular rejection ( P = 0.002), and sepsis ( P = 0.007) were significantly lower in the Spx group. Graft survival of the Spx group was significantly better than that of the no-Spx group ( P < 0.001; hazard ratio [HR], 1.788; 95% confidence interval, 1.214-2.431). A multivariate analysis revealed that 3 variables, platelet count ≤4.0 × 10 4 /mm 3 ( P = 0.029; HR, 2.873), donor age ≥60 y old ( P = 0.013; HR, 6.693), and portal venous pressure at closure ≥20 mm Hg ( P = 0.010; HR, 3.891), were independent predictors of graft loss within 6 mo after simultaneous Spx during LDLT. CONCLUSIONS: Spx is a safe inflow modulation procedure with a positive impact on both postoperative complications and prognosis for most patients. However, patients with the 3 aforementioned independent factors could experience graft loss after LDLT.

Laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) for adenocarcinoma of the body and tail of the pancreas - technical considerations with analysis of surgical outcomes.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to establish whether laparoscopic RAMPS (L-RAMPS) is a safe procedure with better oncological outcomes compared to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) with splenectomy among patients with distal pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: This is a retrospective study performed on consecutive patients who underwent L-RAMPS and LDP with splenectomy for resectable or borderline resectable PDAC of the body and tail. In this paper, we presented our technique of laparoscopic RAMPS and analyzed intraoperative and perioperative complications, oncological efficacy, and long-term survival. RESULTS: The study included 12 patients in the L-RAMPS group and 13 patients in the LDP with splenectomy. L-RAMPS was associated with significantly higher rates of R0 resection (91.7% vs. 69.2%, p = 0.027). There were no differences between the L-RAMPS and LDP with splenectomy groups in intraoperative blood loss (400 mL vs 400 mL, p = 0.783) and median operative time (250 min vs 220 min, p = 0.785). No differences were found in terms of perioperative complications, including the incidence of pancreatic fistula. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic RAMPS is a feasible and safe procedure. It provides higher radicality as compared with LDP with splenectomy, without increasing the risk of complications. Further studies are necessary to evaluate long-term outcomes.