» Articles » PMID: 26027841

Chylothorax After Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: Risk Factors and Management

Overview
Specialty Gastroenterology
Date 2015 Jun 2
PMID 26027841
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Chylothorax is an uncommon complication of esophagectomy. It carries significant morbidity and mortality. The predisposing factors are ill-defined.

Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the data of 45 patients of carcinoma esophagus who underwent esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) from January 2010 to July 2012 in our tertiary health care center.

Results: Four patients (8.88 %) had chylothorax. On analysis of perioperative factors, it was found that patients with chylothorax had tumor in middle third of thoracic esophagus (100 %), shown partial response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NACRT) (100 %) and were associated with difficult mediastinal dissection (75 %) leading to higher blood loss requiring transfusion unlike those without chylothorax. There was no significant difference in the incidence of chylothorax following transhiatal, 3/35 = 8.57 % or transthoracic esophagectomy 1/10 = 10 % (p = 0.898). Three patients were managed by transabdominal en masse ligation of tissue between aorta and azygos vein while one patient was managed conservatively. Patients were discharged after a mean hospital stay of 15.5 days. The 30-day mortality rates in the two groups were similar (0 % vs. 4.8 %).

Conclusion: Difficult mediastinal dissection during esophagectomy in middle esophageal cancer may lead to thoracic duct injury. Complete response to NACRT may reduce the risk of chylothorax. Early transabdominal en masse ligation carries excellent results. Low output fistula following thoracic duct injury can be managed conservatively.

Citing Articles

Esophagectomy in patients with liver cirrhosis: systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes.

Sozzi A, Aiolfi A, Bonitta G, Bona D, Bonavina L, Biondi A Updates Surg. 2024; 77(1):143-152.

PMID: 39718689 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-024-02060-6.


Risk Factors and Treatment of Chylothorax After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.

Tsuchitani Y, Ozawa Y, Taniyama Y, Okamoto H, Sato C, Ishida H Cureus. 2024; 16(7):e65606.

PMID: 39205723 PMC: 11350151. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.65606.


Incidence of chylothorax over nineteen years of transhiatal esophagectomy: A case series and review study.

Mahmodlou R, Yousefiazar A Turk J Surg. 2023; 38(4):401-408.

PMID: 36875269 PMC: 9979556. DOI: 10.47717/turkjsurg.2022.5821.


The management of chyle leak post-oesophagectomy for oesophageal carcinoma: a systematic review.

Robinson A, Kennedy L, Roper T, Khan M, Jaunoo S Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2021; 104(7):480-489.

PMID: 34860128 PMC: 9246555. DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2021.0199.


Management of chyle leakage after general thoracic surgery: Impact of thoracic duct embolization.

Jeon Y, Cho J, Hyun D, Shin S, Kim H, Choi Y Thorac Cancer. 2021; 12(9):1382-1386.

PMID: 33783956 PMC: 8088932. DOI: 10.1111/1759-7714.13914.


References
1.
Rindani R, Martin C, Cox M . Transhiatal versus Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy: is there a difference?. Aust N Z J Surg. 1999; 69(3):187-94. DOI: 10.1046/j.1440-1622.1999.01520.x. View

2.
Laug W, DeClerck Y, Jones P . Degradation of the subendothelial matrix by tumor cells. Cancer Res. 1983; 43(4):1827-34. View

3.
Shah R, Luketich J, Schuchert M, Christie N, Pennathur A, Landreneau R . Postesophagectomy chylothorax: incidence, risk factors, and outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012; 93(3):897-903. PMC: 3430511. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.10.060. View

4.
Merigliano S, Molena D, Ruol A, Zaninotto G, Cagol M, Scappin S . Chylothorax complicating esophagectomy for cancer: a plea for early thoracic duct ligation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000; 119(3):453-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5223(00)70123-1. View

5.
Hulscher J, van Sandick J, de Boer A, Wijnhoven B, Tijssen J, Fockens P . Extended transthoracic resection compared with limited transhiatal resection for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347(21):1662-9. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa022343. View