ArticleClinical case reports2025
Save or Remove the Accessory Spleen in Patient Candidates to Splenectomy for Lymphoproliferative Disorders: Rational and Literature Review.
Article in Clinical case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Save or Remove the Accessory Spleen in Patient Candidates to Splenectomy for Lymphoproliferative Disorders: Rational and Literature Review.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sparing or removing the accessory spleen (AS) in patients undergoing diagnostic splenectomy for lymphoproliferative disorders (LPD) is an unsolved issue rarely considered. Usually, a healthy AS can be preserved. Reporting a case of our own, this paper aims to review existing literature and propose a tailored approach. A 59-year-old woman presented with unexplained anemia. A FDG-PET-CT scan revealed splenomegaly and two hypermetabolic splenic nodules, pathological upper and lower diaphragmatic lymph nodes, and a non-FDG-avid AS around splenic hilum. The patient underwent diagnostic splenectomy and AS removal. The histopathological examination of the spleen disclosed a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), whereas the AS was uninvolved, consistent with the preoperative FDG-PET-CT findings. The post-operative course was uneventful. The patient was discharged on the 5th post-operative day. Asplenia following splenectomy increases the risk of severe infections. It is hypothesized that sparing a healthy AS could help maintain immune competence. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to guide the decision on whether to remove or spare an AS during splenectomy for diagnostic purposes in suspected LPD cases, and to understand the potential prognostic impact (both oncological and infectious) of this strategy. The preoperative finding of a non-FDG-avid AS may recommend surgical sparing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.