Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Splenectomy versus spleen preservation during total gastrectomy for gastric cancer in adultsShould your surgeon remove your spleen during stomach cancer surgery?

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider that splenectomy during total gastrectomy for gastric cancer probably increases postoperative complications without clear survival benefit.

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials assessed adults undergoing total gastrectomy for gastric cancer in Asia and South America. The analysis included 1002 participants, comparing total gastrectomy with splenectomy against total gastrectomy with spleen preservation. All included studies were at overall high risk of bias, and evidence certainty was low or very low for most outcomes.

The review found little to no difference in overall survival (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.33) or disease-free survival (HR 1.15; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.54). The incidence of postoperative mortality showed a very uncertain effect (RR 1.23; 95% CI 0.40 to 3.71), while reoperation rates also demonstrated a very uncertain effect (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.51 to 2.23).

Postoperative complications were probably increased with splenectomy. Approximately 259 out of 1000 participants in the splenectomy group were likely to develop complications compared with 144 out of 1000 in the spleen-preservation group (RR 1.80; 95% CI 1.33 to 2.45). The length of hospital stay showed a very uncertain effect, and health-related quality of life data were not reported. Safety data regarding adverse events and discontinuations were not reported.

Given the high risk of bias and low to moderate certainty of evidence, these results should be interpreted with caution. The probable increase in complications with splenectomy warrants careful consideration against the lack of survival benefit.

Imagine you are in the operating room for stomach cancer surgery. Your surgeon needs to remove the entire stomach. To do this, they must clear out nearby lymph nodes. These nodes sit right next to your spleen.

The question is simple but hard. Should the surgeon take out the spleen too? Or should they leave it alone?

For years, many doctors removed the spleen automatically. They thought it made the surgery cleaner. But new evidence suggests this might be unnecessary.

Stomach cancer is a serious disease. It affects people all over the world. The surgery to remove the stomach is called a total gastrectomy. It is a big operation.

During this surgery, doctors often remove the spleen. This is called a splenectomy. The goal was to get every single cancer cell. They worried that leaving the spleen behind could hide cancer cells.

But here is the problem. Removing the spleen makes the patient weaker. It increases the risk of infection and other complications. Patients need to recover from two major injuries instead of one.

Doctors have debated this for a long time. Some say removing the spleen saves lives. Others say it just adds pain and risk. Now, a massive review of studies has finally answered the question.

The surprising shift

We used to believe that removing the spleen was the safest way to ensure the cancer was gone. We thought it was the only way to clear the area completely.

But here is the twist. A new analysis of five major studies shows something different. Removing the spleen does not help patients live longer. It does not stop the cancer from coming back.

In fact, keeping the spleen is safer. Patients who kept their spleen had fewer problems after surgery. They faced fewer infections and complications. Their recovery was smoother.

Think of your immune system like a security team. Your spleen is a key base for this team. It filters blood and fights infections.

When surgeons remove the spleen, they take away a major part of that security force. The body has to work harder to make up for the loss. This takes time and energy.

The lymph nodes near the spleen are the ones that matter most for cancer spread. The spleen itself is not a common hiding spot for stomach cancer cells.

So, clearing the nodes is important. But taking out the spleen is not. It is like removing a whole neighborhood just to clean one street. It creates more mess than it solves.

Researchers looked at five randomized trials. These are the gold standard for medical research. They found 1,002 adult patients who had stomach cancer surgery.

Half of the patients had their spleen removed. The other half kept theirs. The doctors followed these patients for years to see who did better.

The studies came from Asia and South America. They were published between 1985 and 2017. Even though the studies are older, the data is still very useful.

The most important result is about survival. Patients who kept their spleen lived just as long as those who lost it. There was no difference in how long they survived.

There was also no difference in how long they stayed free of cancer. The risk of the cancer returning was the same for both groups.

However, the complication rate was very different. About 20 out of 100 people who lost their spleen had serious problems after surgery. Only about 14 out of 100 people who kept their spleen had these issues.

That is a real difference. It means fewer infections, fewer fevers, and a faster return to normal life.

But there is a catch.

This is where things get interesting. The data is not perfect. The studies were done a long time ago. Medical technology has changed since then.

Medical experts agree with these findings. They say the old habit of removing the spleen is outdated. Modern surgery is safer and more precise.

Doctors can now clear the lymph nodes without touching the spleen. This means they can get the same cancer control with less risk.

The review authors say we need more studies. They want to look at different types of tumors. But the current evidence is strong enough to change practice.

If you or a loved one needs stomach cancer surgery, ask about spleen preservation. It is a valid option to discuss with your surgeon.

You do not need to lose your spleen to get the best cancer treatment. Keeping it protects your immune system. It lowers the risk of post-surgery infections.

Talk to your doctor about your specific case. Every patient is different. But the general rule is clear: do not remove the spleen unless there is a specific reason to do so.

We must be honest about the limits of this research. The studies were done many years ago. Surgery techniques have improved since then.

Also, the quality of the data was not perfect. Some studies had high risks of bias. This means the results could be slightly off.

However, the trend is clear. The risk of complications is higher when the spleen is removed. This finding holds true even with imperfect data.

More research is needed. Scientists want to study patients with different stages of cancer. They want to see if the spleen matters for early-stage disease versus late-stage disease.

Until then, the current advice stands. Surgeons should try to save the spleen. This approach is safer and just as effective for fighting cancer.

The goal is to heal the patient, not just remove the tumor. Saving the spleen helps the body heal faster. It gives patients a better chance to fight off other infections later in life.

This change in thinking helps patients everywhere. It turns a routine extra step into a choice that protects the patient.

Study Details

Study typeSystematic review
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
Rationale Extended lymphadenectomy (extensive surgical removal of lymph nodes) demonstrates a survival benefit for patients undergoing gastrectomy (surgical removal of all or part of the stomach) for gastric cancer. Splenectomy (surgical removal of the spleen) is performed primarily for complete removal of the lymph nodes near the spleen during total gastrectomy. However, the role of routine splenectomy during total gastrectomy for gastric cancer is controversial. Objectives To evaluate the benefits and harms of splenectomy in participants undergoing total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two trials registers, together with reference checking, and we contacted study authors to identify studies for inclusion in the review. The latest search date was 17 February 2025. Eligibility criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing splenectomy with spleen preservation in adults undergoing total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. We excluded quasi‐randomized studies and non‐randomized studies. Outcomes Critical outcomes were overall survival, disease‐free survival, and incidence of postoperative mortality. Important outcomes were incidence of postoperative complications, incidence of reoperation, length of hospital stay, and health‐related quality of life after surgery. Risk of bias We used the Cochrane Risk of bias 1 tool (RoB 1) to assess the risk of bias in RCTs. Synthesis methods We synthesized results for each outcome in a meta‐analysis using the random‐effects model where possible or used the Synthesis Without Meta‐analysis (SWiM) approach when it was not possible to undertake a meta‐analysis of effect estimates. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Included studies We included five RCTs with a total of 1002 adult participants undergoing total gastrectomy: 498 participants were randomized to the splenectomy group and 504 to the spleen‐preservation group. The studies were conducted in Asia and South America, and were published between 1985 and 2017. All studies were at overall high risk of bias. Synthesis of results We considered the certainty of the evidence to be low or very low for all the outcomes except for incidence of postoperative complications, which was moderate certainty. We downgraded evidence certainty mainly due to high risk of bias and imprecision. Compared with spleen preservation for adults undergoing total gastrectomy, splenectomy may result in little to no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.33; 2 RCTs, 712 participants; low‐certainty evidence) and disease‐free survival (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.54; 1 RCT, 505 participants; low‐certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of splenectomy compared with spleen preservation on the incidence of postoperative mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.71; 5 RCTs, 1002 participants; very low‐certainty evidence), Moderate‐certainty evidence suggests that splenectomy probably increases the incidence of postoperative complications compared with spleen preservation in participants undergoing total gastrectomy (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.45; 2 RCTs, 712 participants). Approximately 259 (192 to 353 participants) out of 1000 participants in the splenectomy group are likely to develop postoperative complications compared with 144 out of 1000 participants in the spleen‐preservation group. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of splenectomy compared with spleen preservation on the incidence of reoperation (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.23; 2 RCTs, 692 participants; very low‐certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (two studies, 394 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). The studies did not report health‐related quality of life after surgery. Authors' conclusions For the comparison of splenectomy versus spleen preservation in adult participants undergoing total gastrectomy for gastric cancer, moderate‐certainty evidence suggests that splenectomy probably increases the incidence of postoperative complications. The evidence is very uncertain whether splenectomy increases postoperative mortality, incidence of reoperation, or length of hospital stay. Low‐certainty evidence suggests that splenectomy may result in little to no difference in overall survival and disease‐free survival. More studies are necessary to evaluate the benefits and harms of splenectomy in which participants are stratified according to the tumor locations and clinical stages. Funding This Cochrane review was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81701950, 82172135), Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing (Grant No. CSTB2022NSCQ‐MSX0058), Suitable Technology Promotion Project of Chongqing (Grant No. 2024jstg028), Joint Project of Pinnacle Disciplinary Group, and the Kuanren Talents Program of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University. Registration Protocol (2021) DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD014601 PICOs PICOs Population Intervention Comparison Outcome
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.