SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Indocyanine green-assisted lymphography for intraoperative chyle leak prevention during esophageal cancer surgery: a systematic review of the literature.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 and aim: Chyle leakage (CL) is a potentially life-threatening complication, severely impacting postoperative recovery after esophageal cancer resections. Indocyanine green-assisted lymphography (ICG-Lg) seems to provide a fluorescent visualization of the thoracic duct (TD), although the optimal approach for CL prevention has not been defined. Methods: This study was designed as a systematic review and included either randomized or observational reports regarding ICG-Lg during esophageal cancer resections. The literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases, and original articles combining ICG-Lg during esophageal cancer resections were selected. The rate of TD visualization was primarily investigated, while secondary outcomes included procedural complications, CL incidence, length of stay, and lymph node harvest (LNH). The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42025638309) and was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Results: Thirteen non-randomized articles were selected, including 1218 patients undergoing surgery for esophageal cancer. MINORS study quality assessment showed moderate scores (74.5%). The TD was correctly visualized in 95.4% and generally preserved (68.1%) for CL prevention. Procedural complications were negligible (0.1%), and CL occurrence was significantly lower after ICG-Lg (1.4 vs 5.4%, P<0.001). The studies demonstrated a shorter LOS (OR -0.13, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.04, P = 0.273) and a significantly higher LNH (OR 0.40, 95% CI -0.20 to 1.00, P<0.001) after ICG-Lg. Conclusions: Although intraoperative ICG-Lg provides a safe and effective TD visualization during esophagectomy, minimization of postoperative CL and maintenance of extensive lymph node dissection depends on the surgical strategy. Randomized trials should be specifically designed to identify surgical determinants of CL prevention in esophageal cancer surgery. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42025638309.
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.