ABSTRACT
Purpose/aim: Spleen preservation distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) can be achieved by either splenic vessel preservation distal pancreatectomy (SVP-DP) or Warshaw technique (WT). Although studies comparing SVP-DP with WT have been reported, controversies exist. The aim of our study is to assess and compare the safety and feasibility of SVP-DP and WT. Materials and methods: Two authors searched the online database independently till April 30, 2017. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors. Short- and long-term outcomes of WT and SVP-DP were evaluated. Subgroup analysis was performed on laparoscopic surgery. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI were estimated. Results: A total of 664 patients from 11 retrospective cohort studies were included. Meta-analysis showed the WT group had a significantly higher incidence of splenic infarction (OR = 0.12; 95% CI: 0.07–0.20; p < 0.00001) and gastric/epigastric varices (OR = 0.11; 95% CI: 0.05–0.24; p < 0.00001). And more patients suffering from splenic infarction from WT group needed further splenectomy (OR = 0.13; 95% CI: 0.02–0.84; p = 0.03). While there was no difference between the two procedures in terms of pancreatic fistula (OR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.25–1.19; p = 0.13), overall morbidity (OR = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.59–1.30; p = 0.50) and hospital stay (MD = −0.45; 95% CI: −1.73-0.82; p = 0.49). Conclusions: Due to relatively higher risk of postoperative splenic infarction, gastric/epigastric varices and Clavien–Dindo III–V complications, WT is not as safe as SVP-DP. However, well-conducted randomized clinical trials are still needed due to the limitations of current studies.
DECLARATION OF INTEREST
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors thank all the colleagues in our institution for the general support in the elaboration of this meta-analysis.