Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026
Contemporary Lymphangiography-Guided Management of Postoperative Chylothorax in Adults: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vennam Krish, Ji Evan, Sharma Ashwani K
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To update pooled estimates of technical and clinical success of lymphangiography-guided management of postoperative chylothorax in adults.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from 1998 to January 2026 for studies reporting outcomes of lymphangiography-guided management of postoperative chylothorax in adults. Two reviewers independently screened records and assessed risk of bias with ROBINS-I. Logit-transformed proportions were pooled with DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models, with robustness checked using restricted maximum-likelihood and Hartung-Knapp estimators, prespecified subgroup and era analyses, sensitivity analyses restricted to studies of at least 10 patients and excluding the largest cohorts, publication-bias testing, and GRADE rating of certainty.
RESULTS: Of 710 records, 28 studies were included in qualitative synthesis and 17 in meta-analysis. Pooled technical success was 75.3%, up from 63.1% in 2018, and clinical success was 74.5%; both were stable under restricted maximum-likelihood and Hartung-Knapp models, when restricted to studies of at least 10 patients (73.1% and 72.3%), and on leave-one-out analysis. Clinical success was numerically higher after esophagectomy (82.6%) than in mixed-origin cohorts (73.9%), but subgroup intervals were wide and overlapping. No covariate explained the substantial heterogeneity (I-squared 68-80%). Egger testing indicated asymmetry for clinical (P = .03) but not technical success (P = .65). Certainty of evidence was low to very low.
CONCLUSION: Lymphangiography-guided management estimates are heterogeneous, of low certainty, and non-comparative. Their interpretation is limited by inconsistent definitions of success, the absence of comparative studies, and other factors; standardized reporting and head-to-head studies are needed before efficacy can be determined.
STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420261388785.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4 (systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from 1998 to January 2026 for studies reporting outcomes of lymphangiography-guided management of postoperative chylothorax in adults. Two reviewers independently screened records and assessed risk of bias with ROBINS-I. Logit-transformed proportions were pooled with DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models, with robustness checked using restricted maximum-likelihood and Hartung-Knapp estimators, prespecified subgroup and era analyses, sensitivity analyses restricted to studies of at least 10 patients and excluding the largest cohorts, publication-bias testing, and GRADE rating of certainty.
RESULTS: Of 710 records, 28 studies were included in qualitative synthesis and 17 in meta-analysis. Pooled technical success was 75.3%, up from 63.1% in 2018, and clinical success was 74.5%; both were stable under restricted maximum-likelihood and Hartung-Knapp models, when restricted to studies of at least 10 patients (73.1% and 72.3%), and on leave-one-out analysis. Clinical success was numerically higher after esophagectomy (82.6%) than in mixed-origin cohorts (73.9%), but subgroup intervals were wide and overlapping. No covariate explained the substantial heterogeneity (I-squared 68-80%). Egger testing indicated asymmetry for clinical (P = .03) but not technical success (P = .65). Certainty of evidence was low to very low.
CONCLUSION: Lymphangiography-guided management estimates are heterogeneous, of low certainty, and non-comparative. Their interpretation is limited by inconsistent definitions of success, the absence of comparative studies, and other factors; standardized reporting and head-to-head studies are needed before efficacy can be determined.
STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420261388785.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4 (systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies).