Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of the Truncated Cone–Rhomboid Pyramid Formula for Simplified Right Ventricular Quantification: A Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Study
Previous Article in Journal
Trajectories of State-Level Sepsis-Related Mortality by Race and Ethnicity Group in the United States
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 13
Issue 10
10.3390/jcm13102849
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Does Thoracic Duct Ligation at the Time of Esophagectomy Impact Long-Term Survival? An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis

by
Alberto Aiolfi
1,*,
Davide Bona
1,
Matteo Calì
1,
Michele Manara
1,
Emanuele Rausa
1,
Gianluca Bonitta
1,
Moustafa Elshafei
2,
Sheraz R. Markar
3 and
Luigi Bonavina
4
1
IRCCS Ospedale Galeazzi—Sant’Ambrogio, Division of General Surgery, Department of Biomedical Science for Health, University of Milan, 20157 Milan, Italy
2
Department of Bariatric and Metabolic Medicine, Clinic Northwest, 60488 Frankfurt, Germany
3
Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2JD, UK
4
IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Division of General and Foregut Surgery, Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, 20097 Milan, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(10), 2849; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13102849
Submission received: 9 April 2024 / Revised: 1 May 2024 / Accepted: 8 May 2024 / Published: 12 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Updates on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Esophageal Cancer)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Thoracic duct ligation (TDL) during esophagectomy has been proposed to reduce the risk of postoperative chylothorax. Because of its role in immunoregulation, some authors argued that it had an unfavorable TDL effect on survival. The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of TDL on overall survival (OS). Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through December 2023. The primary outcome was 5-year OS. The restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD), hazard ratios (HRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as pooled effect size measures. The GRADE methodology was used to summarize the certainty of the evidence. Results: Five studies (3291 patients) were included. TDL was reported in 54% patients. The patients’ age ranged from 49 to 69, 76% were males, and BMI ranged from 18 to 26. At the 5-year follow-up, the combined effect from the multivariate meta-analysis is -3.5 months (95% CI −6.1, −0.8) indicating that patients undergoing TDL lived 3.5 months less compared to those without TDL. TDL was associated with a significantly higher hazard for mortality at 12 months (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.38–1.73), 24 months (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.12–1.35), and 28 months (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02–1.28). TDL and noTDL seem comparable in terms of the postoperative risk for chylothorax (RR = 0.66; p = 0.35). Conclusions: In this study, concurrent TDL was associated with reduced 5-year OS after esophagectomy. This may suggest the need of a rigorous follow-up within the first two years of follow-up.

1. Introduction

The thoracic duct plays a fundamental role in maintaining body homeostasis since it drains filtered chyle through the venous system [1]. Chyle contains emulsified fats, proteins, sugars, lymphocytes, and immunoglobulins, thus contributing to the maintenance of fluid balance, fat absorption, and immune function [2,3,4]. Iatrogenic thoracic duct injury may occur during esophagectomy, thus leading to postoperative chylothorax reported in up to 4% of patients [5,6,7]. Thoracic duct ligation (TDL) during esophagectomy has been proposed for a long time in an attempt to reduce the risk of postoperative chylothorax [8].
Because of its central role in immunoregulation, some authors argued that there was an unfavorable effect of TDL on the 5-year overall survival (OS) while two recent meta-analyses reported no significant differences [9,10]. However, selection bias, heterogeneity related to inclusions of studies reporting thoracic duction resection, and the exclusive utilization of HRs constitute limitations. Further, the unique interpretation of HRs in previous meta-analyses may be misleading because these are time-dependent values and may change over time. For these reasons, we performed an updated individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis with a restricted mean survival time estimation difference (RMSTD) with the intent to assess the effect of TDL on 5-year OS.

2. Materials and Methods

A systematic review was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist guideline (PRISMA 2020) [11]. Ethical approval was not required. Scopus, MEDLINE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Library, and Google Scholar were used [12]. The first search was run in January 2024, repeated in February 2024, and finally updated on 20 February 2024. A combination of the following Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms was used: “Esophageal Cancer”, “Esophageal Neoplasm”, “Esophageal Carcinoma”, “Esophagectomy”, “Esophageal resection”, “survival”, “overall survival”, “thoracic duct ligation”, “thoracic duct obliteration”, and “chylothorax”. The complete search strategy is labelled in the supplementary file. All titles were screened, suitable abstracts were obtained, and the reference lists of each article were appraised independently by three authors (AA, MC, and MM). Study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024505578).

2.1. Eligibility Criteria

The inclusion criteria comprised the following: (1) observational and randomized controlled studies that presented long-term survival information or Kaplan–Meier survival curves comparing thoracic duct ligation (TDL) with noTDL in the context of curatively aimed esophagectomy; (2) in instances where multiple articles were published by the same institution, study group, or based on the same dataset, the articles with the longest follow-up duration or the largest sample size were selected; and (3) for duplicate studies, the most recent and comprehensive reports were chosen. The exclusion criteria were: (1) studies not written in English; (2) studies lacking a comparative analysis between TDL and noTDL; (3) studies that did not report the predefined primary outcome (OS); (4) studies focusing on outcomes of thoracic duct resection; and (5) studies with fewer than 10 patients in each study arm.

2.2. Data Extraction

The following data points were gathered: authors, publication year, country, study design, number of patients, gender, age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status, comorbidities, tumor characteristics, tumor location, surgical approach, postoperative outcomes, pathological outcomes, necessity for postoperative adjuvant treatment, duration of follow-up, and overall survival (OS). Two authors (A.A. and G.B.) independently collected all data and reconciled any disparities during the evaluation process. Subsequently, a third author (LB) reviewed the database and resolved any inconsistencies.

2.3. Outcome of Interest and Definition

The primary outcome assessed was overall survival (OS), which was described as the duration from the surgery date to the most recent follow-up and demise. Secondary outcomes included incidents of chylothorax and anastomotic leak. Information regarding OS was derived from Kaplan–Meier survival curves or obtained from reported hazard ratios (HRs). Esophageal cancer was defined as any primary histopathologically verified neoplasm situated in the cervical, thoracic, and distal esophagus (Siewert I–II).

2.4. Quality Assessment and Assessment of Certainty of Evidence

Two authors (AA, and GB) independently evaluated the methodological quality of the included papers utilizing the ROBINS-I tool [13]. Factors such as confounding, selection, classification, intervention, missing data, outcome measurement, and reporting bias were taken into consideration, with each domain being categorized as “low”, “moderate”, “serious”, or “critical”. The assessment for confounding bias in each study fell into the risk categories of low, moderate, serious, and critical. The quality of the body of evidence across studies was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool [14]. GRADE evidence profiles were created for each comparison and outcome using GRADEpro GDT software (https://www.gradepro.org; accessed on 10 March 2024). The certainty of evidence was determined by factors such as the risk of bias across studies, incoherence, indirectness, imprecision, publication bias, and other relevant parameters [15].

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The systematic review findings were qualitatively summarized and transformed into a Frequentist meta-analysis of the restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD) [16,17,18]. Individual patient time-to-event data (IPD) were reconstructed from Kaplan–Meier curves [19] by digitizing the curves through the Get Data Graph Digitizer software version 2.26 (https://getdata-graph-digitizer.software.informer.com/; accessed on 20 February 2024). The calculation of the pooled RMSTD was conducted using a random-effect multivariate meta-analysis that leveraged strength across time-points with within-trial covariance. Furthermore, a flexible hazard-based regression model was developed using IPD, incorporating a normally distributed random intercept. In modeling the baseline hazard within periocular, an exponential of a B-spline of degree 3 without interior knots was employed, with model selection based on the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). The time-varying effects of surgical treatment were represented as interaction terms between the surgical intervention and the baseline hazard, evaluated through likelihood ratio tests. The hazard functions plot was generated using marginal prediction [20]. Statistical significance was determined by two-sided p-values less than 0.05, with confidence intervals computed at 95%. The statistical analysis was performed using R software application (version 3.2.2; R Foundation, Vienna, Austria) [21].

3. Results

3.1. Systematic Review

The selection process flowchart is shown in Figure 1. Overall, 247 publications were screened after duplicate removal, and 49 were identified for the full-text review. After evaluation, five observational papers met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in the quantitative analysis. The quality of the included studies is listed in Supplementary Table S1.
Overall, 3291 patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer were incorporated for quantitative synthesis (Table 1).
TDL was reported in 1778 (54%) patients. The patients’ age ranged from 49 to 69, the majority were males (76.1%), and the preoperative BMI ranged from 18 to 26. None of the included studies reported data on the ASA score. Squamous cell carcinoma (89.5%) and adenocarcinoma (8.2%) were the most frequently reported tumor histology. Tumor location was reported in all studies and distributed in the upper (16.9%), middle (59.8%), lower thoracic (17.6%) esophagus, and esophagogastric junction (5.7%). Neoadjuvant chemoradiation treatment was reported in 7.2% of patients while adjuvant therapy was completed in 17.4% of patients with different protocols and regimens. Multiple surgical techniques of esophagectomy were reported (Ivor–Lewis, McKeown, and Sweet) and included open, hybrid, and minimally invasive approaches. Two-field and three-field lymphadenectomy were described, whereas anastomotic techniques and location were heterogeneous among the included studies, mainly depending on operating surgeon preferences. The pathological tumor stage was reported according to the seventh and eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer. The techniques for TDL and definitions of chylothorax according to the included studies are summarized in Supplementary Tables S2 and S3.

3.2. Meta-Analysis

3.2.1. Overall Survival (OS)

The RMSTD clinical appraisal was estimated from five studies with a 5-year minimum follow-up [14,18,19,20,22,23]. The RMSTD and OS time horizons were performed for the comparison between noTDL vs. TDL (Table 2). At τ2 = 24-month follow-up, the combined effect from the RMSTD estimate is −1.1 months (95% CI −1.8, −0.4). At τ3 = 36-month, the combined effect is −2.1 months (95% CI −3.3, −0.7). At τ4 = 48-month, the combined effect is −2.8 months (95% CI −4.8, −0.8). At τ5 = 60-month, the combined effect from the multivariate meta-analysis is −3.5 months (95% CI −6.1, −0.8), indicating that the over-5-year-follow-up patients that underwent TDL lived 3.5 months less on average compared with noTDL patients. The estimated pooled OS for TDL and noTDL is represented in Figure 2. Considering the non-proportional hazard model (p < 0.001), the time-varying hazard ratios for TDL vs. noTDL are depicted in Figure 3. Specifically, TDL is associated with a significantly estimated higher hazard for mortality at 6 months (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.53–2.21), 12 months (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.38–1.73), 24 months (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.12–1.35), and 28 months (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02–1.28) compared to noTDL (Table 3).

3.2.2. Secondary Outcomes

The incidence of chylothorax was reported in all included studies (3291 patients) and was comparable for TDL vs. noTDL (1.2% vs. 1.5%). No significant differences were found for the comparison between TDL vs. noTDL (RR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.28–1.56; p = 0.35) (Figure 4). The prediction lower and upper limits were 0.06 and 7.36, respectively. The heterogeneity was low (I2 = 21%, 95% CI 0.0–76%; p = 0.18) and τ2 = 0.01. The sensitivity analysis confirmed the strength of these results regarding the point estimate, relative confidence intervals, and heterogeneity. Due to AL being reported in only two studies, a comprehensive quantitative analysis was not viable. By employing the GRADE tool, the level of evidence for overall survival (OS) was deemed moderate, while for chylothorax, it was considered high (Supplementary Table S4).

4. Discussion

This IPD meta-analysis shows that TDL has a moderately negative impact on OS. At the 60-month follow-up, the OS of patients who underwent TDL was reduced by 3.5 months on average, whereas no remarkable difference was found between the two patients’ groups in terms of postoperative chylothorax.
Esophagectomy is the mainstay of treatment for resectable esophageal cancer [27,28]. The surgical procedure is complex and associated with significant postoperative morbidity and mortality [29,30,31]. Postoperative chylothorax occurs in up to 4% of patients and is determined by iatrogenic thoracic duct injury during surgical maneuvers [5,6,7]. Chylous leakage results in fluid loss, hypovolemia, electrolyte imbalance, nutritional and metabolic depletion, impaired immunological response, and the increased risk of postoperative death. Prophylactic TDL, first performed in 1948 [32], has been proposed during esophagectomy in order to theoretically reduce the risk of postoperative chylothorax or increase the number of harvested lymph nodes [8,33,34,35]. The selective thoracic duct ligature or blind mass ligation of the lympho-fatty tissue located between the aorta and the azygos vein at the level of the eighth–ninth thoracic vertebra is the classical technique for TDL [36]. It should be noted that attempts to identify and ligate the duct, selectively or en bloc with the azygos vein, may lead to inadvertent injury and the occurrence of iatrogenic chylothorax [37]. With new developments in thoracoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery and a better understanding of esophageal anatomy, it has become clear that the quality and reproducibility of esophagectomy can be improved [38]. ICG guidance has the potential to precisely identify the course of the duct in the chest and to avoid possible chyle leakage due to inadvertent injury [39,40,41]. All studies included in the present systematic review reported blind thoracic duct ligation using different anatomical landmarks (Supplementary Table S2). The impact of prophylactic TDL on postoperative chylothorax is a matter of debate. Dougenis et al., in their 1992 retrospective analysis, indicated a possible benefit for TDL in terms of postoperative chylothorax incidence reduction [42]. Crucitti et al., in their 2016 systematic review, concluded that prophylactic TDL may be associated with significantly reduced odds for postoperative chylothorax (OR = 0.47; 95% CI 0.27–0.80) [8]. Similarly, Guo et al. [34], Cagol et al. [43], and Lai et al. [44] identified a trend toward a reduced risk of postoperative chylothorax for TDL. In contrast, Fu et al. [45], in their series of 389 patients, reported no significant differences between TDL vs. noTDL (1.2% vs. 0.5%) in terms of postoperative chylothorax. Further, a recent meta-analysis by Liu et al. [10], re-elaborating some missing data by Crucitti et al. [8], found no significant differences in terms of postoperative chylothorax (OR = 0.73; 95% CI 0.50–1.07). Our meta-analysis supports the data by Fu et al. [45] and Lei et al. [10] reporting a similar postoperative risk for TDL vs. noTDL (RR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.28–1.56). The heterogeneity was low (I2 = 21%) while the sensitivity analysis seems to confirm the robustness of these data. Therefore, it is likely that routine prophylactic TDL during esophagectomy is unnecessary.
The oncological impact of TDL is a more complex issue and the evidence from the literature evidence is puzzling. In our study, we observed that the 5-year life-expectancy of patients that underwent prophylactic TDL was reduced by 3.5 months compared to noTDL patients. This is in line with the findings of Chen et al. [25], who, in their propensity-score-adjusted analysis, concluded that TDL was associated with a worse 5-year cumulative survival compared to patients that did not undergo TDL (48.6% vs. 61.6%; p < 0.001). In the regression analysis, TDL was an independent predictor of poor prognosis (HR = 1.56; 95% CI 1.26–1.93; p < 0.001). Similarly, Hou et al. [22] reported reduced 5-year (46.1% vs. 43.3%) and 10-year (35.1% vs. 30.9%) OS rates in patients that underwent TDL. The multivariate analysis adjusted for clinically relevant confounders found that TDL was independently associated with poor OS (HR = 1.25; 95% CI 1.08–1.46). In contrast, Bao et al. [23] and Fei and colleagues [24] did not report any significant effect of TDL on patient prognosis. Our results may be plausible due to the central homeostatic role of the thoracic duct in the physiology of immunoregulation. Specifically, the thoracic duct carries emulsified fats, together with the lymph to maintain the drainage of a normal immune system. T lymphocytes and other immune components (cytokines) enter the lymphatic tissue and lymphoid organ via postcapillary venues, and then through the thoracic duct, and into superior vena cava [1,4]. Indeed, TDL may modify the pattern of lymph circulation, possibly altering the physiological immune function barrier against circulating cancer cells. Further, it has been suggested that TDL may decrease the concentration of circulating CD4+ lymphocyte, IL-1 beta, and IL-10 in peripheral blood samples [46,47,48]. All these mutual modifications may trigger a significant lymphocyte-mediate immune dysfunction against circulating cancer cell and lymphatic micro metastases with an increased risk of locoregional lymph nodes relapse and early distal organ metastases [47,48]. Hence, all these reasons might be directly involved with the observed TDL-related OS reduction perceived in the RMSTD analysis.
Because of the lack of proportionality (p < 0.001), we performed a time-dependent HR analysis. It is well-known that HRs change over time and are useful to describe the magnitude and direction of survival outcomes [49]. Notably, two previous meta-analyses assessed HR by reporting a single 5-year follow-up calculation that was presumed constant over the entire duration of the study [9,10]. However, the single interpretation of HRs may be misleading because of the time-dependent modifications. As expected, in our analysis, we noticed some HR variations during follow-up (Figure 3). Interestingly, when looking at the shape of the time-dependent HR curve, there is an initial peak (HR = 1.9) presumably associated with the increased postoperative mortality. After this initial peak, the curve takes a downward trend with a gradual HR reduction which, however, remains significant up to 28 months (Figure 3). At this time-point, the HR lower 95% CI bundle encompasses the null hypothesis (HR = 1), thus becoming not significant. This dynamic effect may be attributed to a temporary impairment of the immunological system and impairment of lipo-protein absorption induced by TDL which may last up to 2 years after resection. Therefore, these patients might benefit from a more intensive and patient-tailored surveillance strategy to detect possible early asymptomatic recurrences [50,51,52].
With the aim to minimize heterogeneity, we included in our meta-analysis only studies reporting survival outcomes after TDL. The formal thoracic duct resection (TDR) has been recommended to achieve a complete lymphadenectomy of the posterior mediastinal compartment including lymph node stations no. 106recL and no. 112 as defined by Japanese guidelines [53,54,55,56,57]. The potential advantages of TDR are a higher total number of retrieved lymph nodes and a reduced risk of nodal and hematogenous recurrence after radical esophagectomy [58,59,60,61]. However, TDR seems associated with an increased risk of short-term adverse outcomes such as chylothorax, left recurrent nerve palsy, pulmonary complications, and hemodynamic instability that may be somewhat related to the concomitant azygos vein ligation/resection [60,61,62,63,64]. Nevertheless, TDR with the preservation of the azygos vein has been reported during robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy with no substantial effect on the total number of harvested lymph nodes [65,66,67]. Despite the higher number of retrieved lymph nodes, the real oncologic effect of TDR remains unsolved with some authors reporting even worse 5-year survival rates and more distant organ metastases [56]. Hence, because the lack of robust evidence for short- and long-term outcomes, prospective studies are warranted to assess the clinical and prognostic impact of the preservation of both the thoracic duct and the azygos vein.
Some concerns should be pondered while inferring our results. First, all but one of the included studies described prophylactic TDL; only Fei et al. [24] reported TDL in the case of intraoperative chylous leakage or suspected thoracic duct injury. Notably, we cannot exclude that intraoperative TDL was accomplished in some patients because of inadvertent iatrogenic injury. Hence, this would introduce selection/allocation bias that should be considered while interpreting our data. Second, all included studies were of a retrospective design while allocation bias may have affected our results. However, three studies performed a 1:1 propensity-score matching analysis adjusted for clinically relevant confounders (i.e., age, pathological tumor stage, etc.). The non-adjusted studies by Hou et al. [22] and Yang et al. [26] were well-balanced, whereas no significant differences were detected in the univariate demographic analysis among populations. Third, neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies changed over the study period and were completed in a limited number of patients; therefore, this potential additional bias should be measured. Fourth, all studies were from tertiary level Eastern centers, and, therefore, the results might not be generalizable considering both the operating surgeon proficiency and genomic/biological tumor patterns.
The principal strength of the present IPD analysis is the appraisal of long-term OS using the RMSTD methodology. RMSTD is gaining increasing consensus in clinical oncology as it is a robust and interpretable tool for assessing the survival benefit, thus allowing, in the present analysis, the estimation of the TDL effect during follow-up [68,69]. It matches the area under the Kaplan–Meier survival curves and is easier to understand compared to RR and HR, which may be misinterpreted because both suppose a constant risk during follow-up [70]. We acknowledge that our study does have some limitations related to the baseline heterogeneity (i.e., patient demographics, comorbidities, etc.), and not the uniform report of oncologic data (i.e., histology, grading, adjuvant treatments compliance, and heterogeneous multidisciplinary perioperative care teams or enhanced recovery after surgery programs). The different surgical approaches, operating surgeon expertise/learning curve, and postoperative complications should be also considered because of the possible effect on long-term survival. Finally, our results may not be generalizable because all included studies were from Eastern countries with the majority of patients being diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma.

5. Conclusions

This study seems to suggest a clinically unfavorable impact of TDL on long-term OS after esophagectomy. Patients undergoing TDL have a significantly higher mortality risk within the first 28 months after the operation compared to patients with noTDL, and this may suggest the need of a rigorous follow-up in these patients.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm13102849/s1, Table S1: Quality assessment of the included studies (ROBINS-I tool). Table S2: Different techniques for TDL according to the included studies. Table S3: Definition of postoperative chylothorax according to the included studies. Table S4: The certainty of evidence assessed with the GRADE methodology.

Author Contributions

A.A.: conceptualization, investigation, analysis, and writing—original draft, review, and editing. D.B.: conceptualization, investigation, writing—original draft, review, and editing, and supervision. M.C.: analysis, writing—review and editing. M.M.: writing—review and editing. E.R.: analysis, writing—review and editing. G.B.: conceptualization, analysis, and writing—review and editing. M.E.: investigation, and writing—review and editing. S.R.M.: investigation, and writing—review and editing. L.B.: conceptualization, investigation, analysis, and writing—original draft, review, and editing. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the data, and critical revisions. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data collected and analyzed during the current review are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Swartz, M.A. Immunomodulatory roles of lymphatic vessels in cancer progression. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2014, 2, 701–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Chen, K.N. Managing complications I: Leaks, strictures, emptying, reflux, chylothorax. J. Thorac. Dis. 2014, 6 (Suppl. 3), S355–S363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Breslin, J.W.; Yang, Y.; Scallan, J.P.; Sweat, R.S.; Adderley, S.P.; Murfee, W.L. Lymphatic Vessel Network Structure and Physiology. Compr. Physiol. 2018, 9, 207–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Podgrabinska, S.; Skobe, M. Role of lymphatic vasculature in regional and distant metastases. Microvasc. Res. 2014, 95, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Cerfolio, R.J. Chylothorax after esophagogastrectomy. Thorac. Surg. Clin. 2006, 16, 49–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Kranzfelder, M.; Gertler, R.; Hapfelmeier, A.; Friess, H.; Feith, M. Chylothorax after esophagectomy for cancer: Impact of the surgical approach and neoadjuvant treatment: Systematic review and institutional analysis. Surg. Endosc. 2013, 27, 3530–3538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Miao, L.; Zhang, Y.; Hu, H.; Ma, L.; Shun, Y.; Xiang, J.; Chen, H. Incidence and management of chylothorax after esophagectomy. Thorac. Cancer 2015, 6, 354–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Crucitti, P.; Mangiameli, G.; Petitti, T.; Condoluci, A.; Rocco, R.; Gallo, I.F.; Longo, F.; Rocco, G. Does prophylactic ligation of the thoracic duct reduce chylothorax rates in patients undergoing oesophagectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2016, 50, 1019–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dos Santos, C.L.; Dos Santos, L.L.; Tavares, G.; Tristão, L.S.; Orlandini, M.F.; Serafim, M.C.A.; Datrino, L.N.; Bernardo, W.M.; Tustumi, F. Prophylactic thoracic duct obliteration and resection during esophagectomy: What is the impact on perioperative risks and long-term survival? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Surg. Oncol. 2022, 126, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Liu, L.; Gong, L.; Zhang, M.; Wu, W. The effect of prophylactic thoracic duct ligation during esophagectomy on the incidence of chylothorax and survival of the patients: An updated review. Postgrad. Med. 2021, 133, 265–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Goossen, K.; Tenckhoff, S.; Probst, P.; Grummich, K.; Mihaljevic, A.L.; Büchler, M.W.; Diener, M.K. Optimal literature search for systematic reviews in surgery. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 2018, 403, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Sterne, J.A.; Hernán, M.A.; Reeves, B.C.; Savović, J.; Berkman, N.D.; Viswanathan, M.; Henry, D.; Altman, D.G.; Ansari, M.T.; Boutron, I.; et al. ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016, 355, i4919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Guyatt, G.H.; Oxman, A.D.; Vist, G.E.; Kunz, R.; Falck-Ytter, Y.; Alonso-Coello, P.; Schünemann, H.J. GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008, 336, 924–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Schünemann, H.; Brożek, J.; Guyatt, G.; Oxman, A. GRADE Handbook: 5 Quality of Evidence. 2013. Available online: https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html#h.9rdbelsnu4iy (accessed on 1 January 2023).
  16. Royston, P.; Parmar, M.K. Restricted mean survival time: An alternative to the hazard ratio for the design and analysis of randomized trials with a time-to-event outcome. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2013, 13, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Aiolfi, A.; Griffiths, E.A.; Sozzi, A.; Manara, M.; Bonitta, G.; Bonavina, L.; Bona, D. Effect of Anastomotic Leak on Long-Term Survival After Esophagectomy: Multivariate Meta-analysis and Restricted Mean Survival Times Examination. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2023, 30, 5564–5572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Jackson, D.; White, I.R.; Riley, R.D. A matrix-based method of moments for fitting the multivariate random effects model for meta-analysis and meta-regression. Biom. J. 2013, 55, 231–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Guyot, P.; Ades, A.E.; Ouwens, M.J.N.M.; Welton, N.J. Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: Reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2012, 12, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Charvat, H.; Belot, A. Mexhaz: An R package for fitting flexible hazard-based regression models for overall and excess mortality with a random effect. J. Stat. Softw. 2021, 98, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2023; Available online: http://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 31 December 2023).
  22. Hou, X.; Fu, J.H.; Wang, X.; Zhang, L.J.; Liu, Q.W.; Luo, K.J.; Lin, P.; Yang, H.X. Prophylactic thoracic duct ligation has unfavorable impact on overall survival in patients with resectable oesophageal cancer. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2014, 40, 1756–1762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bao, T.; Wang, Y.J.; Li, K.K.; Liu, X.H.; Guo, W. Short- and long-term outcomes of prophylactic thoracic duct ligation during thoracoscopic-laparoscopic McKeown esophagectomy for cancer: A propensity score matching analysis. Surg. Endosc. 2020, 34, 5023–5029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fei, X.; Wang, X.; Lu, Q.; Lu, C.; Chen, H.; Li, C. The influence of thoracic duct ligation on long-term survival of patients with esophageal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis. J. Thorac. Dis. 2020, 12, 5532–5541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Chen, J.Y.; Liu, Q.W.; Zhang, S.S.; Li, J.B.; Yang, H.; Wen, J.; Fu, J.H. Prophylactic thoracic duct ligation is associated with poor prognosis and regional lymph node relapse in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. J. Surg. Oncol. 2020, 122, 336–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Yang, R.F.; Sui, S.J.; Yu, L.L.; Li, H.Y.; Zhang, R.Q.; Wang, P. Survival Analysis of Patients with Thoracic Duct Ligation during Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy. J. Coll. Physicians Surg. Pak. 2022, 32, 288–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. van der Werf, L.R.; Busweiler, L.A.D.; van Sandick, J.W.; van Berge Henegouwen, M.I.; Wijnhoven, B.P.L.; Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit (DUCA) Group. Reporting National Outcomes After Esophagectomy and Gastrectomy According to the Esophageal Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). Ann. Surg. 2020, 271, 1095–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Demarest, C.T.; Chang, A.C. The Landmark Series: Multimodal Therapy for Esophageal Cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2021, 28, 3375–3382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Low, D.E.; Alderson, D.; Cecconello, I.; Chang, A.C.; Darling, G.E.; D’Journo, X.B.; Griffin, S.M.; Hölscher, A.H.; Hofstetter, W.L.; Jobe, B.A.; et al. International Consensus on Standardization of Data Collection for Complications Associated with Esophagectomy: Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). Ann Surg. 2015, 262, 286–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Low, D.E.; Kuppusamy, M.K.; Alderson, D.; Cecconello, I.; Chang, A.C.; Darling, G.; Davies, A.; D’Journo, X.B.; Gisbertz, S.S.; Griffin, S.M.; et al. Benchmarking Complications Associated with Esophagectomy. Ann. Surg. 2019, 269, 291–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Goense, L.; Ruurda, J.P.; van Hillergersberg, R. Recent advances in defining and benchmarking complications after esophagectomy. J. Thorac. Dis. 2019, 11, E243–E246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lampson, R.S. Traumatic chylothorax; a review of the literature and report of a case treated by mediastinal ligation of the thoracic duct. J. Thorac. Surg. 1948, 17, 778–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Biffi, R.; Botteri, E.; Cenciarelli, S.; Luca, F.; Pozzi, S.; Valvo, M.; Sonzogni, A.; Chiappa, A.; Leal Ghezzi, T.; Rotmensz, N.; et al. Impact on survival of the number of lymph nodes removed in patients with node-negative gastric cancer submitted to extended lymph node dissection. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2011, 37, 305–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Guo, W.; Zhao, Y.P.; Jiang, Y.G.; Niu, H.J.; Liu, X.H.; Ma, Z.; Wang, R.W. Prevention of postoperative chylothorax with thoracic duct ligation during video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy for cancer. Surg. Endosc. 2012, 26, 1332–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Lin, Y.; Li, Z.; Li, G.; Zhang, X.; Deng, H.; Yang, X.; Liu, L. Selective En Masse Ligation of the Thoracic Duct to Prevent Chyle Leak After Esophagectomy. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2017, 103, 1802–1807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bonavina, L.; Saino, G.; Bona, D.; Abraham, M.; Peracchia, A. Thoracoscopic management of chylothorax complicating esophagectomy. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Technol. 2001, 11, 367–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Wemyss-Holden, S.A.; Launois, B.; Maddern, G.J. Management of thoracic duct injuries after oesophagectomy. Br. J. Surg. 2001, 88, 1442–1448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Cuesta, M.A.; Weijs, T.J.; Bleys, R.L.; van Hillegersberg, R.; van Berge Henegouwen, M.I.; Gisbertz, S.S.; Ruurda, J.P.; Straatman, J.; Osugi, H.; van der Peet, D.L. A new concept of the anatomy of the thoracic esophagus: The meso-oesophagus. Observational study during thoracoscopic esophagectomy. Surg. Endosc. 2015, 29, 2576–2582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Arshava, E.V.; Parekh, K.R. Thoracoscopic Thoracic Duct Ligation: How I Teach It. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2020, 109, 1330–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Yang, F.; Gao, J.; Cheng, S.; Li, H.; He, K.; Zhou, J.; Chen, K.; Wang, Z.; Yang, F.; Zhang, Z.; et al. Near-infrared fluorescence imaging of thoracic duct in minimally invasive esophagectomy. Dis. Esophagus 2023, 36, doac049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Barnes, T.G.; MacGregor, T.; Sgromo, B.; Maynard, N.D.; Gillies, R.S. Near infra-red fluorescence identification of the thoracic duct to prevent chyle leaks during oesophagectomy. Surg. Endosc. 2022, 36, 5319–5325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dougenis, D.; Walker, W.S.; Cameron, E.W.; Walbaum, P.R. Management of chylothorax complicating extensive esophageal resection. Surg. Gynecol. Obstet. 1992, 174, 501–506. [Google Scholar]
  43. Cagol, M.; Ruol, A.; Castoro, C.; Alfieri, R.; Michieletto, S.; Ancona, E. Prophylactic thoracic duct mass ligation prevents chylothorax after transthoracic esophagectomy for cancer. World J. Surg. 2009, 33, 1684–1686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Lai, F.C.; Chen, L.; Tu, Y.R.; Lin, M.; Li, X. Prevention of chylothorax complicating extensive esophageal resection by mass ligation of thoracic duct: A random control study. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2011, 91, 1770–1774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Fu, J.H.; Hu, Y.; Huang, W.Z.; Yang, H.; Zhu, Z.H.; Zheng, B. Evaluating prophylactic ligation of thoracic duct during radical resection of esophageal carcinoma. Ai Zheng 2006, 25, 728–730. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  46. Cavriani, G.; Domingos, H.V.; Oliveira-Filho, R.M.; Sudo-Hayashi, L.S.; Vargaftig, B.B.; de Lima, W.T. Lymphatic thoracic duct ligation modulates the serum levels of IL-1beta and IL-10 after intestinal ischemia/reperfusion in rats with the involvement of tumor necrosis factor alpha and nitric oxide. Shock 2007, 27, 209–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Yang, R.-F.; Jiang, Z.-M.; Zhang, R.-Q.; Yu, B.; Wang, X.-H.; Wang, P. Effect of Ligation of the Thoracic Duct During Oesophagectomy on the Absorption of D-xylose. J. Coll. Physicians Surg. Pak. 2017, 27, 153–156. [Google Scholar]
  48. Yang, R.F.; Liu, T.T.; Wang, P.; Zhang, R.Q.; Li, C.; Han, B.; Gao, X.X.; Zhang, L.; Jiang, Z.M. Ligation of thoracic duct during thoracoscopic esophagectomy can lead to decrease of T lymphocyte. J. Cancer Res. Ther. 2018, 14, 1535–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Barraclough, H.; Simms, L.; Govindan, R. Biostatistics primer: What a clinician ought to know: Hazard ratios. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2011, 6, 978–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Markar, S.R.; Mackenzie, H.; Lagergren, P.; Hanna, G.B.; Lagergren, J. Surgical Proficiency Gain and Survival After Esophagectomy for Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 34, 1528–1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sisic, L.; Strowitzki, M.J.; Blank, S.; Nienhueser, H.; Dorr, S.; Haag, G.M.; Jäger, D.; Ott, K.; Büchler, M.W.; Ulrich, A.; et al. Postoperative follow-up programs improve survival in curatively resected gastric and junctional cancer patients: A propensity score matched analysis. Gastric Cancer 2018, 21, 552–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Chidambaram, S.; Sounderajah, V.; Maynard, N.; Markar, S.R. Evaluation of post-operative surveillance strategies for esophageal and gastric cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis. Esophagus 2022, 35, doac034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Matsuda, S.; Kawakubo, H.; Takeuchi, H.; Hayashi, M.; Mayanagi, S.; Takemura, R.; Irino, T.; Fukuda, K.; Nakamura, R.; Wada, N.; et al. Minimally invasive oesophagectomy with extended lymph node dissection and thoracic duct resection for early-stage oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Br. J. Surg. 2020, 107, 705–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Tanaka, K.; Yamasaki, M.; Sugimura, K.; Shiraishi, O.; Motoori, M.; Hamakawa, T.; Takeno, A.; Yamashita, K.; Makino, T.; Kimura, Y.; et al. Thoracic Duct Resection Has a Favorable Impact on Prognosis by Preventing Hematogenous Spread of Esophageal Cancer Cells: A Multi-institutional Analysis of 2269 Patients. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2021, 28, 4402–4410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Matsuda, S.; Takeuchi, M.; Kawakubo, H.; Takeuchi, H.; Kitagawa, Y. Oncological and physiological impact of thoracic duct resection in esophageal cancer. Dis. Esophagus 2023, 36, doad015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Oshikiri, T.; Numasaki, H.; Oguma, J.; Toh, Y.; Watanabe, M.; Muto, M.; Kakeji, Y.; Doki, Y. Prognosis of Patients with Esophageal Carcinoma After Routine Thoracic Duct Resection: A Propensity-matched Analysis of 12,237 Patients Based on the Comprehensive Registry of Esophageal Cancer in Japan. Ann. Surg. 2023, 277, e1018–e1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Japan Esophageal Society. Japanese Classification of Esophageal Cancer, 11th Edition: Part I. Esophagus 2017, 14, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ohkura, Y.; Ueno, M.; Iizuka, T.; Udagawa, H. Effectiveness of lymphadenectomy along the thoracic duct for radical esophagectomy. Esophagus 2022, 19, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Matsuda, S.; Takeuchi, H.; Kawakubo, H.; Shimada, A.; Fukuda, K.; Nakamura, R.; Takahashi, T.; Wada, N.; Kameyama, K.; Kitagawa, Y. Clinical outcome of transthoracic esophagectomy with thoracic duct resection: Number of dissected lymph node and distribution of lymph node metastasis around the thoracic duct. Medicine 2016, 95, e3839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Yoshida, N.; Nagai, Y.; Baba, Y.; Miyamoto, Y.; Iwagami, S.; Iwatsuki, M.; Hiyoshi, Y.; Eto, K.; Ishimoto, T.; Kiyozumi, Y.; et al. Effect of Resection of the Thoracic Duct and Surrounding Lymph Nodes on Short- and Long-Term and Nutritional Outcomes After Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 26, 1893–1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Oshikiri, T.; Takiguchi, G.; Miura, S.; Goto, H.; Otsubo, D.; Hasegawa, H.; Yamamoto, M.; Kanaji, S.; Yamashita, K.; Matsuda, T.; et al. Thoracic Duct Resection During Esophagectomy Does Not Contribute to Improved Prognosis in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matched-Cohort Study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019, 26, 4053–4061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Manara, M.; Bona, D.; Bonavina, L.; Aiolfi, A.; OGSA Group for Esophagogastric Surgery. Impact of pulmonary complications following esophagectomy on long-term survival: Multivariate meta-analysis and restricted mean survival time assessment. Updates Surg. 2024. ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Fujiwara, N.; Sato, H.; Miyawaki, Y.; Ito, M.; Aoyama, J.; Ito, S.; Oya, S.; Watanabe, K.; Sugita, H.; Sakuramoto, S. Effect of azygos arch preservation during thoracoscopic esophagectomy on facilitation of postoperative refilling. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 2020, 405, 1079–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Schröder, W.; Vallböhmer, D.; Bludau, M.; Banczyk, A.; Gutschow, C.; Hölscher, A.H. The resection of the azygos vein—Necessary or redundant extension of transthoracic esophagectomy? J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2008, 12, 1163–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. van Hillegersberg, R.; Boone, J.; Draaisma, W.A.; Broeders, I.A.; Giezeman, M.J.; Borel Rinkes, I.H. First experience with robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagolymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer. Surg. Endosc. 2006, 20, 1435–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Boone, J.; Schipper, M.E.; Bleys, R.L.; Borel Rinkes, I.H.; van Hillegersberg, R. The effect of azygos vein preservation on mediastinal lymph node harvesting in thoracic esophagolymphadenectomy. Dis. Esophagus 2008, 21, 226–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. den Boer, R.B.; Jaspers, T.J.M.; de Jongh, C.; Pluim, J.P.W.; van der Sommen, F.; Boers, T.; van Hillegersberg, R.; Van Eijnatten, M.A.J.M.; Ruurda, J.P. Deep learning-based recognition of key anatomical structures during robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy. Surg. Endosc. 2023, 37, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Wei, Y.; Royston, P.; Tierney, J.F.; Parmar, M.K.B. Meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes from randomized trials using restricted mean survival time: Application to individual participant data. Stat. Med. 2015, 34, 2881–2898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Weir, I.R.; Marshall, G.D.; Schneider, J.I.; Sherer, J.A.; Lord, E.M.; Gyawali, B.; Paasche-Orlow, M.K.; Benjamin, E.J.; Trinquart, L. Interpretation of time-to-event outcomes in randomized trials: An online randomized experiment. Ann. Oncol. 2019, 30, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Saad, E.D.; Tannock, I.F. Avoiding the hazards of misinterpreting treatment effects. Ann. Oncol. 2019, 30, 16–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 13 02849 g001
Figure 1. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews checklist (PRISMA) diagram.
Figure 1. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews checklist (PRISMA) diagram.
Jcm 13 02849 g001
Jcm 13 02849 g002
Figure 2. Estimated pooled OS (Y-axis) for NTDL (black line) and TDL (red line). Time (X-axis) is expressed in months. Continuous lines indicate survival curves with 95% confidence intervals (dotted lines).
Figure 2. Estimated pooled OS (Y-axis) for NTDL (black line) and TDL (red line). Time (X-axis) is expressed in months. Continuous lines indicate survival curves with 95% confidence intervals (dotted lines).
Jcm 13 02849 g002
Jcm 13 02849 g003
Figure 3. TDL vs. noTDL overtime OS hazard ratio (HR) variations (Y-axis). Continued tracts represent the estimated pooled hazards while dotted tracts represent the 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI). Time (X-axis) is expressed in months. Continuous lines indicate survival curves with 95% confidence intervals (dotted lines).
Figure 3. TDL vs. noTDL overtime OS hazard ratio (HR) variations (Y-axis). Continued tracts represent the estimated pooled hazards while dotted tracts represent the 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI). Time (X-axis) is expressed in months. Continuous lines indicate survival curves with 95% confidence intervals (dotted lines).
Jcm 13 02849 g003
Jcm 13 02849 g004
Figure 4. Forest plot for postoperative chylothorax. TDL: thoracic duct ligation; noTDL: no thoracic duct ligation. RR: risk ratio; 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) [22,23,24,25,26].
Figure 4. Forest plot for postoperative chylothorax. TDL: thoracic duct ligation; noTDL: no thoracic duct ligation. RR: risk ratio; 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) [22,23,24,25,26].
Jcm 13 02849 g004
Table 1. Demographic, clinical, and operative data for patients undergoing thoracic duct ligation (TDL) and no thoracic duct ligation (NTDL). Pathologic tumor stage is reported according to the to the 7th and 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC). UT: upper thoracic, MT: middle thoracic, LT: lower thoracic, EGJ: esophagogastric junction. Adk: adenocarcinoma, SCC: squamous cell carcinoma; S-W: Sweet esophagectomy; IL-E: Ivor–Lewis esophagectomy; McK-E: McKeown esophagectomy; MIE: minimally invasive esophagectomy. yrs: years; M: male; F: female. Ret: retrospective design. PSM: propensity score matching. Data are reported as numbers, mean ± standard deviation, and median (range). Nr: not reported.
Table 1. Demographic, clinical, and operative data for patients undergoing thoracic duct ligation (TDL) and no thoracic duct ligation (NTDL). Pathologic tumor stage is reported according to the to the 7th and 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC). UT: upper thoracic, MT: middle thoracic, LT: lower thoracic, EGJ: esophagogastric junction. Adk: adenocarcinoma, SCC: squamous cell carcinoma; S-W: Sweet esophagectomy; IL-E: Ivor–Lewis esophagectomy; McK-E: McKeown esophagectomy; MIE: minimally invasive esophagectomy. yrs: years; M: male; F: female. Ret: retrospective design. PSM: propensity score matching. Data are reported as numbers, mean ± standard deviation, and median (range). Nr: not reported.
Author, Year, Contry, Study DesignStudy PeriodTreatmentNo. ptsAge (yrs)M/FUTMTLTEGJAJCCTis-T1T2T3T4N0N1N2N3Adk/SCC/OtherS-EIL-EMcK-EMIE
Hou et al., 2014, China, Ret [22]1996–2008TDL98957.2 ± 9.2786/20319559117647th61234657305042641665517/930/4267622262nr
noTDL81558.5 ± 9.8608/207126332176179681965281638521714667170/604/4157621162nr
Bao et al., 2020, China, Ret PSM [23]2009–2018TDL13459.5 ± 6.3105/2915104150nr91592138842400/134/000134134
noTDL4058.7 ± 7.329/1133430242932910100/40/0004040
Fei et al., 2020, China, Ret PSM [24]2012–2014TDL18561.4 ± 7.3147/38131135728th4649837100612044/166/15104315039
noTDL18561.1 ± 7.9139/46111254814950815985720104/165/1697295945
Chen et al., 2020, China, Ret PSM [25]2003–2013noTDL43758.7 ± 8.2342/95903153207th548529081961269025nr0104333nr
noTDL43759.1 ± 7.8335/102883054406890267122091396623nr0110327nr
Yang et al., 2022, China, Ret [26]2016–2021TDL33>60:1928/55181008th171060nrnrnrnrnrnrnrnr69
noTDL36>60:1829/7616140161280nrnrnrnrnrnrnrnr
Table 2. Overall survival. The 60-month restricted mean survival time difference (RSMTD) at different time horizons for noTDL vs. TDL comparison. SE: standard error; 95% CI: confidence intervals; mos: months.
Table 2. Overall survival. The 60-month restricted mean survival time difference (RSMTD) at different time horizons for noTDL vs. TDL comparison. SE: standard error; 95% CI: confidence intervals; mos: months.
Time HorizonNo. TrialsRMSTD (mos)SE95% CIp Value
12-month5−0.20.11−0.43, −0.010.049
24-month5−1.10.4−1.8, −0.40.005
36-months5−2.10.6−3.3, −0.70.003
48-months5−2.80.9−4.8, −0.80.004
60-months5−3.51.2−6.1, −0.80.009
Table 3. Overall survival. Time-dependent hazard ratio (HR) analysis for the TDL vs. noTDL. Table legend. 95%CI: confidence interval; mos: months.
Table 3. Overall survival. Time-dependent hazard ratio (HR) analysis for the TDL vs. noTDL. Table legend. 95%CI: confidence interval; mos: months.
TDL vs. NTDL
HR (95% CI)
6 mos1.83 (1.53–2.21)
12 mos1.54 (1.38–1.73)
24 mos1.21 (1.12–1.35)
28 mos1.14 (1.02–1.28)
36 mos1.04 (0.90–1.19)
48 mos0.95 (0.82–1.12)
60 mos0.96 (0.79–1.17)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Aiolfi, A.; Bona, D.; Calì, M.; Manara, M.; Rausa, E.; Bonitta, G.; Elshafei, M.; Markar, S.R.; Bonavina, L. Does Thoracic Duct Ligation at the Time of Esophagectomy Impact Long-Term Survival? An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 2849. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13102849

AMA Style

Aiolfi A, Bona D, Calì M, Manara M, Rausa E, Bonitta G, Elshafei M, Markar SR, Bonavina L. Does Thoracic Duct Ligation at the Time of Esophagectomy Impact Long-Term Survival? An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(10):2849. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13102849

Chicago/Turabian Style

Aiolfi, Alberto, Davide Bona, Matteo Calì, Michele Manara, Emanuele Rausa, Gianluca Bonitta, Moustafa Elshafei, Sheraz R. Markar, and Luigi Bonavina. 2024. "Does Thoracic Duct Ligation at the Time of Esophagectomy Impact Long-Term Survival? An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 10: 2849. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13102849

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop