Table 2. Comparison between the Kimura and Warshaw technique.
| Variable | Kimura (n=41) | Warshaw (n=11) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years), n (%) | 0.095 | ||
| <50 | 27 (65.9) | 4 (36.4) | |
| ≥50 | 14 (34.1) | 7 (63.6) | |
| Sex, n (%) | 0.159 | ||
| Female | 29 (70.7) | 5 (45.5) | |
| Male | 12 (29.3) | 6 (54.5) | |
| BMI (kg/m2), n (%) | 0.435 | ||
| <24 | 32 (78.0) | 7 (63.6) | |
| ≥24 | 9 (22.0) | 4 (36.4) | |
| Tumor size (cm), n (%) | 0.216 | ||
| <6 | 34 (82.9) | 7 (63.6) | |
| ≥6 | 7 (17.1) | 4 (36.4) | |
| Tumor location, n (%) | 0.453 | ||
| Body | 12 (29.3) | 3 (27.3) | |
| Tail | 18 (43.9) | 3 (27.3) | |
| Body and tail | 11 (26.8) | 5 (45.4) | |
| Radiographic appearance, n (%) | 0.000 | ||
| Solid | 8 (19.5) | 4 (36.4) | |
| Cystic | 27 (65.9) | 3 (27.3) | |
| Heterogeneous | 6 (14.6) | 4 (36.4) | |
| Splenic vessel compression by tumor, n (%) | 0.015 | ||
| Obvious | 5 (12.2) | 7 (63.6) | |
| No/slight | 36 (87.8) | 4 (36.4) | |
| Pathological diagnosis, n (%) | 0.326 | ||
| SCN | 14 (34.1) | 3 (27.3) | |
| MCN | 8 (19.5) | 2 (18.2) | |
| SPN | 5 (12.2) | 2 (18.2) | |
| NET | 6 (14.6) | 4 (36.4) | |
| Others | 8 (19.5) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Operative time, mean ± SD (min) | 226.0±56.1 | 228.2±56.7 | 0.909 |
| EBL, median (IQR) (mL) | 50 (20 to 100) | 50 (20 to 100) | 0.563 |
| Conversion, n (%) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | N/A |
| LOS, mean ± SD (days) | 8.2±6.8 | 10.8±5.6 | 0.250 |
| Morbidity, n (%) | 5 (12.2) | 2 (18.2) | 0.630 |
| CR-POPF, n (%) | 3 (7.3) | 1 (9.1) | 1.000 |
| Mortality, n (%) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | N/A |
RSPDP, robotic splenic preservation distal pancreatectomy; BMI, body mass index; SCN, serous cystic neoplasm; MCN, mucinous cystic neoplasm; SPN, solid pseudopapillary neoplasm; NET, neuroendocrine tumor; EBL, estimated blood loss; LOS, length of stay; CR-POPF, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula; N/A, not applicable.