ArticleCureus2024
Risk Factors and Treatment of Chylothorax After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Duration of Prophylactic Antibiotic Use for Esophageal Cancer Patients with Postoperative Infection and Nutritional Status.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
- Lymph Cyst After Robotic-assisted Lateral Lymph Node Dissection for Rectal Cancer Treated With Lymphangiography: A Case Report.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Postoperative chylothorax is a rare but life-threatening complication of esophagectomy. However, due to its rarity, researching the risk factors and selecting appropriate treatment options has been limited. Methods This study included 727 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy at our hospital. To detect the risk factors for chylothorax, we divided the patients into two groups, with and without postoperative chylothorax. We then compared patient characteristics, tumor-specific variables, and operative details. Subsequently, we analyzed the peri-treatment characteristics and outcomes for the three distinct treatment options we had chosen: surgery, conversion (the group that finally underwent surgery after unsuccessful conservative treatment), and conservative. Results Of the 727 patients, 18 (2.5%) developed a chylothorax. The mean BMI was lower (20.3 vs. 21.9, p=0.057), and more cases of thoracic duct resection were found in the chylothorax group (33.3% vs. 6.2%, p=0.001), with statistical significance. Multivariate analysis identified thoracic duct resection as a risk factor (adjusted odds ratio, 6.83). The drainage volume two days after chylothorax was higher in the surgery group, although the difference was not statistically significant (surgery group, 1,405 ml vs. conversion group, 260 ml vs. conservative group, 310 ml; p=0.073). The surgery group had the shortest median postoperative hospital days among these groups (21.5 as compared to 102 and 25.0 days in the conversion and conservative groups, respectively; p<0.001). None of the patients died during their hospital stays. Conclusion Thoracic duct resection during the initial minimally invasive esophagectomy was an independent risk factor for chylothorax. If drainage volume does not decrease on the second day, early surgery may lead to earlier discharge.
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.