ArticleWorld journal of surgery2022
Is Prophylactic Cervical Drainage Effective in Patients Undergoing McKeown Esophagectomy Reconstructed Through the Retrosternal Route with Two-Field Lymphadenectomy?
Article in World journal of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A randomized controlled trial exploring the effect of placement versus nonplacement of a drainage tube around the cervical anastomosis in McKeown esophagectomy.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Staged Airway Stenting for Life-Threatening Tracheogastric Fistula (TGF) After Esophagectomy: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Optimizing Perioperative Care in Esophageal Surgery: The EUropean PErioperative MEdical Networking (EUPEMEN) Collaborative for Esophagectomy.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Case report: Drainage tube penetrating anastomosis as a rare cause for long-term nonunion of esophagogastric anastomosis in neck.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMcKeown esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy is the treatment of choice for oncologic esophagectomy. A cervical drain is placed in cases after modern two-field lymph node dissection (M2FD) to provide information on anastomotic leakage. However, the necessity of prophylactic cervical drainage during surgery remains unknown. This study aimed to clarify the clinical significance of cervical drainage in patients who underwent McKeown esophagectomy with M2FD.
methodsA total of 293 patients underwent McKeown surgery with two-field lymphadenectomy at our institute between January 2013 and December 2019. We compared the day of drain removal, amount of drainage volume, and the appearance of drainage fluid between patients with and without anastomotic leakage.
resultsMcKeown esophagectomy reconstructed through the retrosternal route is 203 patients (69.3%) of all. Nineteen patients (6.5%) experienced anastomotic leakage. The amount of cervical drain discharge was comparable between patients with and without anastomotic leakage. In addition, no purulent or salivary discharge was observed in patients with anastomotic leakage. There was no difference in the median day of drain removal between the groups. The initial clinical findings for the diagnosis of anastomotic leakage were surgical site infection in 10 (52.6%), fever in 5 (26.3%), prolonged inflammation in a blood test in 3 (15.8%), and bloody discharge from the chest tube in 1 (5.3%). There was no mortality due to any cause.
conclusionA prophylactic cervical drain may not be mandatory in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing McKeown esophagectomy reconstructed through the retrosternal route with two-field lymphadenectomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35445357What 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.