Relation Between Splenectomy and Subsequent Infection: A Clinical Study

Abstract

Six years ago, in a treatise on 'Splenic Function', Hayhoe and Whitby (1955) stated as one of their conclusions that 'the spleen can be removed with relative impunity and low mortality and is not in any way essential to life'. The present study, however, provides evidence to prove that the spleen may be essential to life; that its absence, in infancy particularly, may result in serious and overwhelming infection. Such a relation was suggested first by King and Schumacker (1952), and later by Smith and his colleagues (Smith, Erlandson, Schulman and Stern, 1956; Smith, Erlandson, Schulman and Stern, 1957; Smith, Erlandson, Stern and Schulman, 1960), Gofstein and Gellis (1956), Robinson and Sturgeon (1960) and Lucas and