4.7 Article

Thoracic Duct Embolization for Nontraumatic Chylous Effusion Experience in 34 Patients

期刊

CHEST
卷 143, 期 1, 页码 158-163

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1378/chest.12-0526

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Thoracic duct embolization (TDE) is an acceptable alternative procedure for treating traumatic chylothorax. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate efficacy of TDE in treating nontraumatic chylous effusions. Methods: A retrospective review of 34 patients was conducted assessing technical and clinical success of TDE for nontraumatic chylous effusions. Results: Thirty-four patients (mean age, 59 years; 27 female patients) with nontraumatic chylous effusions underwent TDE. Presentations included 21 unilateral chylothoraces (61.8%), nine bilateral chylothoraces (26.5%), two isolated chylopericarcliums (5.9%), and two pleural effusions with chylopericardium (5.9%). TDE was technically successful in 24 of 34 patients (70.6%). The thoracic duct could not be catheterized in four of 34 (11.8%). Cisterna chyli was not visualized in six of 34 patients (17.6%), and, thus, TDE was not attempted. Follow-up was available for 32 patients. Four lymphangiographic patterns were observed: (1) normal thoracic duct in 17.6% of patients (six of 34), (2) occlusion of thoracic duct in 58.8% (20 of 34), (3) failure to opacify thoracic duct in 17.6% (six of 34), and (4) extravasation of chyle in 5.9% (two of 34). Clinical success varied with the lymphangiographic pattern. The clinical success rate was 16% (one of six) in cases of normal thoracic duct, 75% (15 of 20 patients) in occlusions of the thoracic duct, 16% (one of six) in cases of failure to opacify the thoracic duct, and 50% in two cases of chyle extravasation. Lymphangiography alone cured two patients (6.5%). Conclusion: TDE was most successful in cases of thoracic duct occlusion and extravasation. Lymphangiography is important for identifying the cause of chylous effusions and selecting patients who benefit most from TDE. CHEST 2013; 143(1):158-163

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

4.7
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