ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2023
Chest wall reconstruction after the Clagett procedure and other types of open-window thoracostomy: a narrative review.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of thoracostomy in the management of postoperative empyema following lung resection: a narrative review of surgical strategies, evolving techniques, and outcomes.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Current treatment strategies and prospects for chest wall defect repair and reconstruction.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Review
- Endobronchial Watanabe Spigot for Acute Empyema With Bronchopleural Fistula: A Case Series.Respirology case reports · 2025Article
- Modified thoracostomy window as a surgical treatment for chronic pleuropulmonary infections.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Predictors of successful closure following open-window thoracostomy in patients with empyema: a single-center retrospective cohort study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: The Clagett procedure is one of the last treatment options for chronic stage pleural empyema. It involves the formation of an open-window in the thoracic wall to allow for continuous drainage and irrigation of the pleural cavity. Once the empyema has been resolved, reconstruction of the chest wall is sometimes challenging. This review aims to identify and summarize the options for reconstructing soft tissue defects of the chest wall following the Clagett procedure and other types of open-window thoracostomy. Methods: A narrative review was performed of the literature on PubMed, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar, including all relevant studies published until January 2023. Key Content and Findings: This review contains an overview of the reconstruction methods and the outcomes of the included studies on reconstructive options after the Clagett procedure and other types of open-window thoracostomy. A subdivision was made based on reconstruction type: pedicled flaps, free flaps, and the use of a vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) device. The advantages of pedicled flaps are reliable vascularization, better tissue match, reduced scarring, and shorter operation time compared to free flaps. However, when pedicled flaps are not available due to damage during previous surgeries or offer insufficient volume to obliterate the cavity, free flaps might be a solution. Conclusions: In cases where an open-window thoracostomy necessitates chest wall reconstruction, a pedicled flap is the preferred choice, followed by free flaps. Additionally, vacuum-assisted negative pressure wound therapy (VANPWT) techniques have shown potentially promising results (as an adjunct to surgical treatment).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.