4.3 Article

The anatomy of the thoracic duct at the level of the diaphragm: A cadaver study

期刊

ANNALS OF ANATOMY-ANATOMISCHER ANZEIGER
卷 217, 期 -, 页码 47-53

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1016/j.aanat.2018.02.003

关键词

Thoracic duct; Anatomy; Lymph vessels; Esophageal cancer; Esophageal surgery; Chylothorax

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Injury and subsequent leakage of unrecognized thoracic duct tributaries during transthoracic esophagectomy may lead to chylothorax. Therefore, we hypothesized that thoracic duct anatomy at the diaphragm is more complex than currently recognized and aimed to provide a detailed description of the anatomy of the thoracic duct at the diaphragm. Basic procedures: The thoracic duct and its tributaries were dissected in 7 (2 male and 5 female) embalmed human cadavers. The level of origin of the thoracic duct and the points where tributaries entered the thoracic duct were measured using landmarks easily identified during surgery: the aortic and esophageal hiatus and the arch of the azygos vein. Main findings: The thoracic duct was formed in the thoracic cavity by the union of multiple abdominal tributaries in 6 cadavers. In 3 cadavers partially duplicated systems were present that communicated with interductal branches. The thoracic duct was formed by a median of 3 (IQR: 3-5) abdominal tributaries merging 8.3 cm (IQR: 7.3-9.3 cm) above the aortic hiatus, 1.8 cm (IQR: -0.4 to 2.4 cm) above the esophageal hiatus, and 12.3 cm (IQR: 14.0 to -11.0 cm) below the arch of the azygos vein. Conclusion: This study challenges the paradigm that abdominal lymphatics join in the abdomen to pass the diaphragm as a single thoracic duct. In this study, this occurred in 1/7 cadavers. Although small, the results of this series suggest that the formation of the thoracic duct above the diaphragm is more common than previously thought. This knowledge may be vital to prevent and treat post-operative chyle leakage. (C) 2018 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据