Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2024
Synchronous supraclavicular vascularized lymph node transfer and liposuction for gynecological cancer-related lower extremity lymphedema: A clinical comparative analysis of three different procedures.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Wei Miaomiao, Wang Liangliang, Wu Xiangkui, Wu Bihua, Xiao Shune, Zhang Yixin, Min Peiru, Deng Chengliang
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Gynecological cancer-related lower extremity lymphedema (GC-LEL), a chronic, progressive condition, lacks a standardized treatment. Currently, supraclavicular vascularized lymph node transfer (SC-VLNT) is a favored approach in the treatment of lymphedema, and there is a trend toward combination technology. This study conducts a comparative analysis of three techniques for treating GC-LEL with simultaneous SC-VLNT and liposuction.
METHODS: A cohort of 35 patients with GC-LEL was examined, comprising 13 patients who underwent single lymph nodes flap with a skin paddle (SLNF+P), 12 who received single lymph nodes flap without a skin paddle (SLNF), and 10 who accepted dual lymph nodes flap without a skin paddle (DLNF). Patient demographics and outcomes were meticulously documented, covering intra- and postoperative variables.
RESULTS: The median limb volume reduction were 56.4% (SLNF+P), 60.8% (SLNF), and 50.5% (DLNF) in stage II, and 54.0% (SLNF+P), 59.8% (SLNF), and 54.4% (DLNF) in stage III. DLNF group procedures entailed longer flap harvesting and transplantation times. The SLNF+P group, on average, had an 8-day postoperative hospitalization, longer than others. All patients noted subjective improvements in Lymphedema Quality of Life scores, with lymphoscintigraphy revealing enhanced lymphatic flow in 29 of the 35 cases. A notable decrease in cellulitis incidence was observed. Additionally, the occurrence of cellulitis decreased significantly, except for DLNF (Stage Ⅱ). The median follow-up time was 16 months (range, 12-36 months), with no reported severe postoperative complications.
CONCLUSIONS: For advanced GC-LEL, SLNF combined with liposuction is a preferred treatment, offering fewer complications, shorter operative time, and hospitalization.
METHODS: A cohort of 35 patients with GC-LEL was examined, comprising 13 patients who underwent single lymph nodes flap with a skin paddle (SLNF+P), 12 who received single lymph nodes flap without a skin paddle (SLNF), and 10 who accepted dual lymph nodes flap without a skin paddle (DLNF). Patient demographics and outcomes were meticulously documented, covering intra- and postoperative variables.
RESULTS: The median limb volume reduction were 56.4% (SLNF+P), 60.8% (SLNF), and 50.5% (DLNF) in stage II, and 54.0% (SLNF+P), 59.8% (SLNF), and 54.4% (DLNF) in stage III. DLNF group procedures entailed longer flap harvesting and transplantation times. The SLNF+P group, on average, had an 8-day postoperative hospitalization, longer than others. All patients noted subjective improvements in Lymphedema Quality of Life scores, with lymphoscintigraphy revealing enhanced lymphatic flow in 29 of the 35 cases. A notable decrease in cellulitis incidence was observed. Additionally, the occurrence of cellulitis decreased significantly, except for DLNF (Stage Ⅱ). The median follow-up time was 16 months (range, 12-36 months), with no reported severe postoperative complications.
CONCLUSIONS: For advanced GC-LEL, SLNF combined with liposuction is a preferred treatment, offering fewer complications, shorter operative time, and hospitalization.