Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36199483›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches2022

Risk Factors, Diagnosis and Management of Chyle Leak Following Esophagectomy for Cancers: An International Consensus Statement.

Sivesh K Kamarajah, Manjunath Siddaiah-Subramanya, Alessandro Parente, Richard P T Evans, Ademola Adeyeye, Alan Ainsworth, Alberto M L Takahashi, Alex Charalabopoulos, Andrew Chang, Atila Eroglue and 35 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Utility ofNuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023
    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

45 authors at 20 institutions in 30 countries.

Sivesh K KamarajahDepartment of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Manjunath Siddaiah-SubramanyaDepartment of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Alessandro ParenteDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Richard P T EvansDepartment of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Ademola AdeyeyeThe Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Afe Babalola University (ABUAD), Nigeria.
Alan AinsworthOdense University Hospital, Denmark.
Alberto M L TakahashiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Tumors, National Cancer Institute, Mexico City, MX.
Alex CharalabopoulosLaikon General Hospital, Greece.
Andrew ChangSection of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Atila EroglueDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Medical Faculty, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey.
Bas WijnhovenDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Claire DonohoeDepartment of Surgery, Trinity College Dublin, St James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Daniela MolenaThoracic Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Eider Talavera-UrquijoDepartment of Surgery, San Raffaele Hospital, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Flavio Roberto TakedaGastroenterology Department, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Gail DarlingDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
German RoseroHospital San Ignacio-Universidad Javeriana, Colombia.
Guillaume PiessenCNRS, Inserm, CHU Lille, UMR9020-U1277-CANTHER-Cancer Heterogeneity Plasticity and Resistance to Therapies, University of Lille, Lille, France.
Hans MahendranHospital Sultanah Aminah, Johor Bahru, Malaysia.
Hsu Po KueiTaipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan.
Ines GockelDepartment of Visceral, Transplant, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University of Leipzig, Germany.
Ionut NegoiEmergency Hospital of Bucharest, Romania.
Jacopo WeindelmayerGeneral and Upper G.I. Surgery Division, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Jari RasanenDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Heart and Lung Center, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Kebebe BekeleSchool of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Madda Walabu University Goba Referral Hospital, Bale-Goba, Ethiopia.
Guowei KimNational University Hospital, University Surgical Cluster, Singapore.
Lieven DepypereDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Lorenzo FerriDepartment of Thoracic Surgery and Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Magnus NilssonKarolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Frederik KlevebroKarolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
B Mark SmithersDepartment of Surgery, Princess Alexandra Hospital, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Mark I van Berge HenegouwenDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Peter GrimmingerDepartment of General-, Visceral- and Transplant Surgery, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
Paul M SchneiderDepartment of Digestive and Oncological Surgery, Hirslanden Medical Center, Zurich, Switzerland.
C S PrameshDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Raza SayyedDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Patel Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.
Richard BaborDepartment of General Surgery, Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.
Shinji MineDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan.
Simon LawDepartment of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Suzanne GisbertzDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Tim BrightDepartment of Oesophago-gastric Surgery, Flinders Medical Centre, Australia.
Xavier Benoit D'JournoDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Aix-Marseille University, North Hospital, Marseille, France.
Donald LowDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, DC.
Pritam SinghRegional Oesophago-Gastric Unit, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, United Kingdom.
Ewen A GriffithsDepartment of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
University of Birmingham · GBQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham · GBInstituto Nacional de Cancerología · MXAfe Babalola University · NGAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLThe University of Melbourne · AUAtatürk University · TRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille · FRErasmus MC · NLFlinders Medical Centre · AUHelsinki University Hospital · FIKarolinska Institutet · SEKlinik Hirslanden · CHKU Leuven · BELeipzig University · DEMadda Walabu University · ETMcGill University · CAMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USNational University Hospital · SGOdense University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This Delphi exercise aimed to gather consensus surrounding risk factors, diagnosis, and management of chyle leaks after esophagectomy and to develop recommendations for clinical practice. Background: Chyle leaks following esophagectomy for malignancy are uncommon. Although they are associated with increased morbidity and mortality, diagnosis and management of these patients remain controversial and a challenge globally. Methods: This was a modified Delphi exercise was delivered to clinicians across the oesophagogastric anastomosis collaborative. A 5-staged iterative process was used to gather consensus on clinical practice, including a scoping systematic review (stage 1), 2 rounds of anonymous electronic voting (stages 2 and 3), data-based analysis (stage 4), and guideline and consensus development (stage 5). Stratified analyses were performed by surgeon specialty and surgeon volume. Results: In stage 1, the steering committee proposed areas of uncertainty across 5 domains: risk factors, intraoperative techniques, and postoperative management (ie, diagnosis, severity, and treatment). In stages 2 and 3, 275 and 250 respondents respectively participated in online voting. Consensus was achieved on intraoperative thoracic duct ligation, postoperative diagnosis by milky chest drain output and biochemical testing with triglycerides and chylomicrons, assessing severity with volume of chest drain over 24 hours and a step-up approach in the management of chyle leaks. Stratified analyses demonstrated consistent results. In stage 4, data from the Oesophagogastric Anastomosis Audit demonstrated that chyle leaks occurred in 5.4% (122/2247). Increasing chyle leak grades were associated with higher rates of pulmonary complications, return to theater, prolonged length of stay, and 90-day mortality. In stage 5, 41 surgeons developed a set of recommendations in the intraoperative techniques, diagnosis, and management of chyle leaks. Conclusions: Several areas of consensus were reached surrounding diagnosis and management of chyle leaks following esophagectomy for malignancy. Guidance in clinical practice through adaptation of recommendations from this consensus may help in the prevention of, timely diagnosis, and management of chyle leaks.

Indexed as

chyle leaksesophagectomyoutcomes

Identifiers

PMID36199483
PMCPMC9508983
OpenAlexW4293486071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.