Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33844077›Full record

ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2021

Radiological management of postoperative lymphorrhea.

C M Sommer, C C Pieper, F Offensperger, F Pan, H J Killguss, J Köninger, M Loos, T Hackert, M Wortmann, T D Do and 5 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Interventional Radiology in Management of Postoperative Chylous Ascites.Interventional radiology (Higashimatsuyama-shi (Japan) · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

C M SommerClinic of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Stuttgart Clinics, Kriegsbergstrasse 60, 70174, Stuttgart, Germany. cmsommer@gmx.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7953-8481
C C PieperClinic of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Bonn University Hospital, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53105, Bonn, Germany.
F OffenspergerClinic of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Stuttgart Clinics, Kriegsbergstrasse 60, 70174, Stuttgart, Germany.
F PanClinic of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, INF 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
H J KillgussClinic of General, Visceral, Thoracic and Transplantation Surgery, Stuttgart Clinics, Kriegsbergstrasse 60, 70174, Stuttgart, Germany.
J KöningerClinic of General, Visceral, Thoracic and Transplantation Surgery, Stuttgart Clinics, Kriegsbergstrasse 60, 70174, Stuttgart, Germany.
M LoosClinic of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, INF 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
T HackertClinic of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, INF 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
M WortmannClinic of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, INF 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
T D DoClinic of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, INF 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
G MaleuxDepartment of Radiology, Leuven University Hospitals, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, UZ, Belgium.
G M RichterClinic of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Stuttgart Clinics, Kriegsbergstrasse 60, 70174, Stuttgart, Germany.
H U KauczorClinic of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, INF 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
J KimDepartment of Radiology, School of Medicine, Ajou University Hospital, Ajou University, 164 World Cup-ro, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon, 16499, Republic of Korea.
S HurDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Ihwa-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePostoperative lymphorrhea can occur after different surgical procedures and may prolong the hospital stay due to the need for specific treatment. In this work, the therapeutic significance of the radiological management of postoperative lymphorrhea was assessed and illustrated.

methodA standardized search of the literature was performed in PubMed applying the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term "lymphangiography." For the review, the inclusion criterion was "studies with original data on Lipiodol-based Conventional Lymphangiography (CL) with subsequent Percutaneous Lymphatic Intervention (PLI)." Different exclusion criteria were defined (e.g., studies with <15 patients). The collected data comprised of clinical background and indications, procedural aspects and types of PLI, and outcomes. In the form of a pictorial essay, each author illustrated a clinical case with CL and/or PLI.

resultsSeven studies (corresponding to evidence level 4 [Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine]) accounting for 196 patients were included in the synthesis and analysis of data. Preceding surgery resulting in postoperative lymphorrhea included different surgical procedures such as extended oncologic surgery or vascular surgery. Central (e.g., chylothorax) and peripheral (e.g., lymphocele) types of postoperative lymphorrhea with a drainage volume of 100-4000 ml/day underwent CL with subsequent PLI. The intervals between "preceding surgery and CL" and between "CL and PLI" were 2-330 days and 0-5 days, respectively. CL was performed before PLI to visualize the lymphatic pathology (e.g., leakage point or inflow lymph ducts), applying fluoroscopy, radiography, and/or computed tomography (CT). In total, seven different types of PLI were identified: (1) thoracic duct (or thoracic inflow lymph duct) embolization, (2) thoracic duct (or thoracic inflow lymph duct) maceration, (3) leakage point direct embolization, (4) inflow lymph node interstitial embolization, (5) inflow lymph duct (other than thoracic) embolization, (6) inflow lymph duct (other than thoracic) maceration, and (7) transvenous retrograde lymph duct embolization. CL-associated and PLI-associated technical success rates were 97-100% and 89-100%, respectively. The clinical success rate of CL and PLI was 73-95%. CL-associated and PLI-associated major complication rates were 0-3% and 0-5%, respectively. The combined CL- and PLI-associated 30-day mortality rate was 0%, and the overall mortality rate was 3% (corresponding to six patients). In the pictorial essay, the spectrum of CL and/or PLI was illustrated.

conclusionThe radiological management of postoperative lymphorrhea is feasible, safe, and effective. Standardized radiological treatments embedded in an interdisciplinary concept are a step towards improving outcomes.

Indexed as

ChylothoraxEmbolization, TherapeuticLymphoceleEthiodized OilHumansLymphographyPostoperative ComplicationsThoracic DuctEthiodized OilLymphangiographyLymphorrheaPercutaneous lymphatic interventionRadiological management

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.