Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Surgical Treatment of Lymphedema

Schaverien, Mark V. M.B.Ch.B., M.Sc., M.Ed., M.D., P.G.Cert.(F.L.M.); Coroneos, Christopher J. M.D., M.Sc.

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: September 2019 - Volume 144 - Issue 3 - p 738-758
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005993
Reconstructive: Trunk: Special Topic
Free
SDC
Editor's Pick

Summary: Lymphedema affects up to 250 million people worldwide. The understanding of the pathophysiology of the condition, however, is incomplete and a cure remains elusive. A growing body of evidence supports the effectiveness of modern surgical techniques in ameliorating the long-term disability and functional impairment inflicted by lymphedema on the lives of those affected. These procedures can be broadly categorized as physiologic, including lymphovenous bypass and using a vascularized lymph node transplant; or de bulking, by suction-assisted lipectomy or direct excisional procedures. The lymphovenous bypass procedure involves identification of obstructed lymphatic vessels and targeted bypass of these into neighboring venules. The vascularized lymph node transplant procedure involves microvascular anastomosis of functional lymph nodes into an extremity, either to an anatomical (orthotopic) or nonanatomical (heterotopic) location, to restore physiologic lymphatic function. In patients undergoing postmastectomy breast reconstruction, this may be performed by transferring a deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap with a chimeric groin lymph node flap. For patients that have undergone breast-conserving surgery, in those for whom a free abdominal flap is contraindicated, or for those with lymphedema affecting the lower extremity, many other vascularized lymph node transplant options are available; these include flaps harvested from within the axillary, inguinal, or cervical lymph node basins, or from within the abdominal cavity. Chronic lymphedema is characterized by fibroadipose soft-tissue deposition that can only be removed by lipectomy, either minimally invasively using liposuction, or by direct excision. This article reviews the techniques and outcomes of surgical procedures used to treat lymphedema.

Houston, Texas

From the Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.

Received for publication May 15, 2018; accepted February 28, 2019.

Disclosure:Neither author has a financial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned in this article.

Related digital media are available in the full-text version of the article on www.PRSJournal.com.

Mark V. Schaverien, M.B.Ch.B., M.Sc., M.Ed., M.D., P.G.Cert.(F.L.M.), Department of Plastic Surgery, Unit 1488, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler Street, Houston, Texas 77030, mvschaverien@mdanderson.org

Lymphedema is a common, chronic, and debilitating condition affecting approximately 1 in 30 people worldwide.1–3 In developing countries, secondary lymphedema most frequently arises because of filariasis, a parasitic infection that leads to lymphedema of the lower extremities by direct lymphatic obstruction.1 In the Western world, lymphedema is predominantly iatrogenic secondary to lymphadenectomy for the treatment of cancer, in particular, breast4,5 and gynecologic cancers,6,7 with risk increased by adjuvant radiotherapy, especially regional nodal irradiation.5 Primary lymphedema is rare, with identifiable genetic mutations found in approximately 30 percent of patients, many involving the signaling pathway for vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-C.8,9

Lymphedema results from developmental or acquired dysfunction of the lymphatic system, characterized by lymphatic vessel ectasia and valve dysfunction, followed by reflux of lymphatic fluid into the interstitial space. Lymphatic fluid stasis leads to a localized chronic inflammatory process, resulting in extracellular matrix remodeling and fibrosis, adipose tissue differentiation, and progressive fibrosis/sclerosis, with eventual obliteration of the lymphatic vessel lumen.10–13 The inflammatory cell accumulation around the lymphatic vessels leads to up-regulation of inducible nitric oxide synthase expression, resulting in increased nitric oxide levels that disrupt the intrinsic nitric oxide gradient and decrease collecting lymphatic contractility and lymphatic fluid transport.14 In addition, the chronic T-helper 2 cell–biased inflammatory response with expression of cytokines—including interleukin-4, interleukin-13, interferon-gamma, and transforming growth factor-β1—leads to decreased collateral lymphatic vessel formation by hindering lymphatic endothelial cell proliferation and tubule formation, migration, and function.15,16 Obesity, an independent risk factor for lymphedema development, results in reversible lymphatic dysfunction regulated by perilymphatic inducible nitric oxide synthase expression and accumulation of T cells and macrophages, mediated by T-cell inflammatory responses.17,18

Advances in our understanding of the anatomophysiology of the lymphatic system, and the pathogenesis underlying lymphedema, have led to the development of effective surgical techniques to ameliorate the symptoms and disability of patients with lymphedema and reduce the risk of future episodes of cellulitis. Physiologic procedures, including lymphovenous bypass and vascularized lymph node transplant procedures, aim to restore lymphatic fluid drainage within the affected area.19–23 Vascularized lymph node flaps may be harvested from within the axillary, inguinal, or cervical lymph node basins, or from intraabdominal donor sites. Once established, the chronic lymphedema phenotype is characterized by hypertrophy of fibroadipose soft tissues, which can only be removed directed by suction-assisted lipectomy or excisional procedures to restore function and appearance.24

Back to Top | Article Outline

DIAGNOSIS AND STAGING

The presence of dermal backflow on contrast-enhanced imaging of the lymphatic system is diagnostic for lymphedema, and the severity and distribution of this backflow correlate closely with the pathologic condition of the lymphatic vessels.25–27 Magnetic resonance lymphography enables global detailed visualization of individual lymphatic vessels and lymph nodes and enables both diagnosis of lymphedema and surgical planning.28 Radioisotope lymphoscintigraphy allows for the global serial assessment of lymphatic physiologic function, and of the draining lymph nodes29,30; it can be combined with computed tomography (single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography) for three-dimensional localization of lymph nodes for reverse lymphatic mapping for vascularized lymph node transplantation31,32 (Fig. 1). Indocyanine green fluorescent lymphography enables detailed dynamic functional evaluation of the superficial lymphatic system,33 and can also be used for intraoperative lymph node mapping for vascularized lymph node transplantation. Several clinical staging systems for lymphedema derived from these imaging modalities have been reported,25,26,30,34–39 which may aid in informing treatment algorithms. Staging systems using indocyanine green lymphography are used most commonly, evaluating the lymphatic transport, presence of functional lymphatic vessels, and pattern and distribution of dermal backflow25,26,38,40,41 (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Back to Top | Article Outline

PATIENT SELECTION FOR SURGICAL INTERVENTION

Patient selection for surgery for lymphedema varies across institutions. For patients presenting soon after developing lymphedema, where their lymphedema is at an early stage, a trial of complete decongestive therapy for 3 to 6 months is typically instituted42–47; surgical intervention is indicated for those with persistent lymphedema following this, especially with recurrent bouts of cellulitis.42,43,48 For patients presenting at an advanced stage with significant pitting edema, preoperative prehabilitation using reductive complete decongestive therapy can be beneficial to optimize conditions for surgery by transitioning toward the maintenance phase.37,49 Patients with recurrent episodes of cellulitis may benefit from prophylactic antibiotics.

Surgery is contraindicated in patients with active cellulitis. Those with untreated or uncontrolled primary cancer or locoregional recurrence, or those medically unfit to undergo surgery safely, are better served by nonsurgical management.

Back to Top | Article Outline

LYMPHOVENOUS BYPASS PROCEDURE

The lymphovenous bypass procedure is indicated in early lymphedema.27,38,44,50 Although it is less effective alone in advanced-stage lymphedema, there may be synergistic benefits when performed synchronously with vascularized lymph node transplantation.51,52 Intrinsic venous hypertension in the extremity may result from postirradiation fibrosis reducing the compliance of the proximal veins, and from perivascular postsurgical scarring.53–55 Selection of venules without reflux secondary to venous hypertension and lymphatic vessels without sclerosis, and meticulous surgical technique, are determinants for successful long-term anastomotic patency.56–59

Using a fluorescent lymphography imaging system, intradermal injection of indocyanine green into the web spaces of the affected extremity allows the lymphatic vessels to be mapped, and discrete lymphatic vessels distal to areas of dermal backflow are targeted for supermicrosurgical anastomosis to adjacent small venules.25,26,33,60,61 Crossing veins can be seen as shadows over the fluoresced lymphatic vessels, and a vein imager is a useful adjunct to identify adjacent venules without reflux.59

Anastomotic techniques are selected depending on the relative calibers of the lymphatic vessels and venules62–65 (Fig. 3). [See Figure, Supplemental Digital Content 1, which shows end-to-end lymphovenous bypass; passage of lymphatic fluid into the venule is seen without venous reflux, http://links.lww.com/PRS/D654. See Figure, Supplemental Digital Content 2, which shows end-to-side lymphovenous bypass into a larger vein; the lymphatic vessel is stented open and the flow characteristics are favorable toward flow of lymphatic fluid into the vein, http://links.lww.com/PRS/D655. See Figure, Supplemental Digital Content 3, which shows indocyanine green fluorescent lymphography of the end-to-side lymphovenous bypass in Supplemental Digital Content 2; the lymphatic fluid is visualized flowing into the vein, http://links.lww.com/PRS/D656. See Figure, Supplemental Digital Content 4, which shows end-to-end anastomosis of a large lymphatic using a 1.0-mm-diameter venous coupler (Synovis Micro Companies Alliance, Birmingham, Ala.); the coupler permanently stents open the anastomosis to reduce the risk of technical failure, http://links.lww.com/PRS/D657. See Figure, Supplemental Digital Content 5, which shows side-to-end lymphovenous bypass; the continuity of the lymphatic vessel is preserved and the combined lymphatic flow pressure from anterograde and retrograde flow overcomes venous reflux, http://links.lww.com/PRS/D658. See Figure, Supplemental Digital Content 6, which shows double-barreled end-to-end lymphovenous bypass into a side branch of a vein; the thicker vein wall maintains patency, and the combined lymphatic fluid flow pressure overcomes the higher venous back-pressure, http://links.lww.com/PRS/D659.] Incisions 1 to 2 cm in length are made over the selected site, and a high-power specialist microscope is necessary for accurate visualization; 6-0 monofilament suture may used for intraluminal stenting to ensure patency.66 In addition, 11-0 nylon sutures are typically used in interrupted fashion; in the rare circumstance that the internal lymphatic vessel diameter is 1.0 mm or more in diameter, a venous coupler system may be used for end-to-end anastomosis. Immediate bypass of the lymphatic vessels severed at the time of axillary or inguinal lymphadenectomy into adjacent veins within the surgical field (lymphatic microsurgical preventing healing approach technique) has demonstrated efficacy at reducing the risk of subsequent lymphedema development, and is an area of ongoing investigation.67–69

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Postoperative Management for Lymphovenous Bypass

Perioperative antibiotics may be indicated in those experiencing recurrent infections. Following surgery, patients elevate the operated extremity; compression garments are typically recommenced at 4 weeks after surgery for approximately 6 months.70

Back to Top | Article Outline

VASCULARIZED LYMPH NODE TRANSPLANTATION PROCEDURE

Vascularized lymph node transplantation is indicated in established lymphedema to provide new physiologic function. The presence of significant segmental dermal backflow with few or no functioning lymphatic vessels on imaging is an indication for vascularized lymph node transplantation, and its distribution may help in deciding between proximal anatomical (orthotopic) or distal nonanatomical (heterotopic) lymph node flap placement. Where there are patent lymphatic channels, performing lymphovenous bypass and vascularized lymph node transplantation synchronously may provide a synergistic benefit.51,52

Vascularized lymph node transplantation is most commonly performed to treat upper extremity breast cancer–related lymphedema. In patients undergoing postmastectomy breast reconstruction, this may be performed by transferring a deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap with a chimeric groin vascularized lymph node flap placed in the axilla.71–74 For patients that have undergone breast-conserving surgery, in those for whom a DIEP flap is contraindicated, or for those with lymphedema affecting the lower extremity, several other vascularized lymph node flap options are available (Table 1).1–152 These include the groin,48,75 supraclavicular,45,52,76,77 submental,78 and lateral thoracic32,79–81 vascularized lymph node flaps. For patients wishing to avoid any risk of iatrogenic donor extremity lymphedema or visible donor-site scars, intraabdominal lymph node flap options are increasingly being performed, including the omental (gastroepiploic) flap,43,83 which may be harvested laparoscopically, and the jejunal mesenteric flap.84,85 The role of prophylactic vascularized lymph node transplantation in those at high risk of developing lymphedema is yet to be determined.86

Table 1. - Vascularized Lymph Node Flap Options and Characteristics
Flap Lymph Node Group Pedicle Mean No. of Lymph Nodes ± SD Advantages Disadvantages
Groin lymph node flap48,71–75,103 Superficial inguinal lymph nodes Superficial circumflex iliac artery and vein 3.3 ± 1.6 •Ability to combine flap with free abdominal tissue transfer for postmastectomy breast reconstruction
•Inconspicuous donor-site scar
•Risk of causing iatrogenic lower extremity lymphedema
•Need for reverse mapping
•Short vascular pedicle
Supraclavicular lymph node flap45,52,76,77 Cervical level Vb lymph nodes Supraclavicular branch of the transverse cervical vessels and branches of the external jugular vein 3.3 ± 1.5 •Minimal risk of upper extremity lymphedema •Risk of injury to surrounding vital structures [thoracic duct (left), right lymphatic duct, phrenic nerve] and supraclavicular nerve (paresthesia of upper anterior chest)
Submental lymph node flap78,106–108 Cervical level Ia/Ib lymph nodes Submental artery (branch of the facial artery) 3 ± 0.6 •Minimal risk of donor-site lymphedema •Risk of injuring the marginal mandibular nerve (temporary paralysis)
•Potentially conspicuous donor-site scar
Lateral thoracic lymph node flap79–81 Axillary level I lymph node Lateral thoracic artery and vein (or thoracodorsal artery and vein if absent) 13.40 ± 3.13 •Flap size may be tailored to recipient-site requirements •Potential to cause upper extremity donor-site lymphedema
•Need for reverse mapping
•Potential need to divide terminal branches of the thoracodorsal nerve
Greater omental/gastroepiploic lymph node flap43,82,83,115–117 Area of omentum adjacent to the gastroepiploic vascular arcade Right (or left) gastroepiploic artery and vein Right gastroepiploic: 6.4 ± 7.3; left gastroepiploic: 8.3 ± 7.9 •Possibility for laparoscopic harvest
•Minimal risk of intraabdominal lymphedema
•Flap size may be tailored to recipient-site requirements
•Risk of causing abdominal complications (incisional hernia, peritonitis, gastric ischemia, pancreatitis, injury to intraabdominal organs including bowel, bowel obstruction)
•No skin paddle
•Short vascular pedicle
Jejunal mesenteric lymph node flap84 Third part of the jejunal mesentery Second, third, or fourth mesenteric branch of superior mesenteric artery and vein Proximal jejunal segment: 10.4 ± 3.6 at periphery; 8.8 ± 5.2 at root •Minimal risk of donor-site lymphedema •Risk of causing abdominal complications (incisional hernia, peritonitis, gastric ischemia, pancreatitis, injury to intraabdominal organs including bowel, bowel obstruction)
•No skin paddle
•Short vascular pedicle

Back to Top | Article Outline

Mechanism of Action

Although the precise mechanism of vascularized lymph node transplant action is incompletely understood, two main mechanisms have been demonstrated in experimental and clinical settings87–94: lymphangiogenesis with new afferent and efferent lymphatic collateral pathways connecting the transplanted lymph nodes with lymphatic vessels in the recipient site to restore outflow (“bridging” mechanism), mediated by lymphangiogenic growth factor secretion from the transplanted lymph nodes, in particular, VEGF-C87,95,96; and neolymphangiogenesis, establishing new lymphaticovenous drainage within the transplanted lymph nodes, driven by perfusion gradients between the arterial inflow and venous outflow (“pumping” mechanism).88,91,92,94 These mechanisms support the clinical efficacy of both orthotopic and heterotopic placement of the vascularized lymph nodes within an extremity. Lymphaticolymphatic anastomoses are unnecessary, as neolymphatic connections develop by means of homing lymphatic growth factor mechanisms.89 The number of lymph nodes transferred may proportionally relate to outcome.97,98

Back to Top | Article Outline

Groin Lymph Node Flap

Detailed knowledge of the lymphovascular anatomies and variability of the inguinal donor site is essential to avoid the risk of iatrogenic donor-site lower extremity lymphedema and ensure viability of the lymph nodes.99 The superficial inguinal lymph node basin that drains the lower abdomen and is supplied by the superficial circumflex iliac artery (SCIA) and vein (SCIV) is the target for lymph node flap harvest from this region, separated by distinct fascial boundaries from the deep lymph node basins adjacent to the femoral vessels that drain the lower extremity.48,71,75 Dissection medial to the lateral border of femoral artery, caudal to the groin crease, and deep to the fascia of the thigh, is avoided48,99–101; because of the variability of the lymphatic drainage patterns,102 reverse lymphatic mapping is essential for intraoperative guidance32 (Fig. 1). Limitations include variable vascular anatomy with short pedicle length and small arterial caliber,103 and potential bulkiness when used for distal extremity placement.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Perforator Flap with Chimeric Groin Lymph Node Flap

For chimeric DIEP-groin lymph node flap transfer,71–74,104 the lymph node flap is harvested deep to the suprafascial (Scarpa) plane with a broad pedicle to ensure perfusion105 (Fig. 4); adequate perfusion can be assessed by fluorescent perfusion clearance imaging (Fig. 5, left). Where the lymph node flap is located on the hemiabdomen ipsilateral to the perforators supplying the flap, additional anastomosis of the SCIV is typically required to adequately drain the lymph nodes (Fig. 5, right). Where the lymph node flap is located on the contralateral hemiabdomen to the perforators, additional anastomosis of both the SCIA and SCIV to branches of the subscapular system within the axilla is necessary to perfuse the lymph node flap.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Submental Lymph Node Flap

The submental lymph node flap includes submental (cervical level Ia) and submandibular (cervical level Ib) lymph nodes perfused by the submental artery.78 The incision is placed parallel to the inferior border of the mandible over the submental artery, and a skin paddle may be raised on perforators arising from this artery (Fig. 6, left). The arterial pedicle length is short and of small caliber, and there may be anatomical variability of the facial artery and vein.106,107 Care should be taken to preserve branches of the marginal mandibular nerve.108 The flap is low volume, making it suitable for distal extremity placement, and there is very low risk of donor-site lymphedema. The resultant scar, however, may be visible in the submandibular area (Fig. 6, right).

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Supraclavicular Lymph Node Flap

The supraclavicular lymph node flap is based on the transverse cervical vessels and includes cervical level Vb lymph nodes.45,52,76,77 It is a thin pliable flap suitable for distal extremity placement, and the resultant scar can be well-concealed by clothing. Injury to the supraclavicular nerve, however, may result in paresthesia of the upper anterior chest. Although the right side is typically preferred for harvest to avoid risk of injury to the thoracic duct, it contains fewer lymph nodes than the left side.77

Back to Top | Article Outline

Lateral Thoracic Lymph Node Flap

The lateral thoracic lymph node flap incorporates axillary level I lymph nodes.79–81 Sentinel lymph node drainage of the thorax and upper extremity is discretely organized109–111; the sentinel lymph nodes to the upper extremity are typically located cephalad to the second intercostal brachial nerve and lateral to the lateral thoracic vein. Dissection medial to the lateral border of the pectoralis minor and cephalad to the second intercostal brachial nerve is avoided, and the use of reverse lymphatic mapping is essential to reduce the risk of donor-site lymphedema.32

Although the lateral thoracic lymph nodes are typically perfused by the lateral thoracic or accessory lateral thoracic vessels, where these are absent, the thoracodorsal pedicle is the dominant blood supply; perforators from these vessels variably supply the overlying skin paddle. The flap has a long vascular pedicle and contains many lymph nodes80; there is freedom of design of the skin paddle and thus the resultant donor-site scar (Fig. 7, above). Versatility in flap design makes it suitable for both orthotopic and heterotopic flap placement81,112,113 (Fig. 7, below).

Fig. 7.

Fig. 7.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Gastroepiploic (Greater Omental) Lymph Node Flap

The omental flap has recently been revisited as a vascularized lymph node flap using microsurgical transfer, negating the many limitations of the pedicled flap.114 Within the omentum, several lymph nodes are clustered around the gastroepiploic vessels, allowing for bilateral or dual-level transfer on the right and left sides of the pedicle43,82,83,115–117 (Fig. 8). There is a low risk of causing abdominal complications, and there is no risk of donor-site lymphedema. Flap size can be tailored to the donor-site requirements, and limiting harvest to the right gastroepiploic lymph node packet reduces unwanted bulk and gastric morbidity43,85,118 (Fig. 9). Skin grafting may be required for distal extremity placement. Flap harvest is by means of a minilaparotomy or abdominoplasty approach, resulting in well-hidden scars, or by using laparoscopic techniques to reduce donor-site morbidity.

Fig. 8.

Fig. 8.

Fig. 9.

Fig. 9.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Jejunal Mesenteric Lymph Node Flap

The jejunal mesenteric lymph node flap has been described as both a flap harvested from the periphery of the mesentery,84 and from closer to the root of the mesentery85; the latter approach avoids the risk of disruption to the vascular supply to the adjacent bowel segment and subsequent ischemic bowel complications (Fig. 10, above), and a flow-through design is favored. The low flap bulk makes it suitable for distal extremity placement (Fig. 10, below); however, remote monitoring is typically required. Harvest is by means of a minilaparotomy or abdominoplasty approach.

Fig. 10.

Fig. 10.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Selection of Recipient Site

Decisions regarding vascularized lymph node flap selection relative to recipient-site location are individualized to the patient, taking into account the results of imaging, clinical examination findings, body habitus, and availability and quality of flap donor sites, in addition to patient and surgeon preferences. Following prior axillary lymphadenectomy, orthotopic vascularized lymph node transplant to the axilla allows for radical scar release and decompression of the subclavian vein, and the resultant scar and flap bulk are well-concealed within the axilla (Fig. 11); dead space is obliterated to prevent scar recurrence.74 In the setting of postmastectomy breast reconstruction, and when lymphedema predominantly affects the upper arm, this is typically achieved using a DIEP flap with chimeric groin vascularized lymph node transplant using the internal mammary recipient vessels. Alternative proximal recipient sites include the upper medial arm for the upper extremity and the medial thigh or inguinal region for the lower extremity.113

Fig. 11.

Fig. 11.

Whereas advanced-stage lymphedema predominantly affects the distal extremity, as lymphatic fluid transport is severely impaired, heterotopic nonanatomical lymph node placement allows for the fluid to be absorbed from the most gravity-dependent position of the limb.48,78,89,91,92 For the upper extremity, placement of the flap in the volar forearm conceals the flap bulk well. For the lower extremity, placement of the flap in the medial calf area achieves distal placement with acceptable cosmetic appearance.81 Localized debulking of fibroadipose soft tissues and the typically thickened deep fascia provides a pocket for the lymph node flap and may allow tension-free primary skin closure. Meticulous excision of perivascular scarring around the recipient veins is necessary to avoid venous hypertension. Low-volume flaps may achieve improved cosmesis in the setting of distal vascularized lymph node transplant, reducing the need for revision operations. Options for recipient-site selection relative to vascularized lymph node flap options to aid in decision-making are presented in Figure 12.

Fig. 12.

Fig. 12.

Where the entire extremity is affected, dual-level transfer may improve clinical outcomes by enhancing the lymphatic drainage throughout the affected limb; the intraabdominal donor site is well-suited for this requirement.43,84,119 For these more complex reconstructions, a two-team approach is preferable to reduce ischemic and operative time.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Postoperative Management for Vascularized Lymph Node Transplant Procedure

Antibiotics are indicated postoperatively to avoid cellulitis. The extremity is elevated postoperatively; distal lower extremity flaps may require a postoperative dangling protocol. Postoperative compression therapy may be reinstituted at 4 weeks postoperatively for approximately 6 months.23,72,81,119 Suction-assisted lipectomy of residual soft-tissue excess may be performed in staged fashion.120–122

Back to Top | Article Outline

CLINICAL OUTCOMES OF LYMPHOVENOUS BYPASS/VASCULARIZED LYMPH NODE TRANSPLANTATION PROCEDURES

Observational case-control and cohort studies support the efficacy of lymphovenous bypass and vascularized lymph node transplantation for lymphedema in reduction of limb volume and episodes of cellulitis (Tables 2 and 3). The available literature supports favorable limb volume reduction outcomes for both orthotopic22,23,73,123 and heterotopic48,75,89,98,124 lymph node flap transfer in both the upper and lower extremities (Table 3). Long-term outcomes data from recently described flaps and for dual-level (orthotopic and heterotopic) lymph node flap transfer are awaited.43,82,116,119

Table 2. - Observational Case-Control Study Data of Outcomes of Surgical Interventions for Lymphedema
Comparator Groups Reference Extremity Primary or Secondary Study Groups Outcomes
Comparison of CDT with LVB and/or VLNT Dionyssiou et al., 201623 UE Secondary •RCT: 18 patients treated with groin LN flap (to axilla)
•18 patients received 6 mo of CDT alone
•Limb volume reduction greater in VLNT (57%) group than in CDT (18%) group
•Infective episodes significantly reduced in VLNT compared with CDT group
Cheng et al., 201348 UE Secondary •10 patients underwent groin LN flap (to wrist or elbow) (mean follow-up, 39.1 ± 15.7 mo)
•10 patients underwent CDT only
•Mean circumferential measurement reduction rate significantly greater (40.4 ± 16.1%) in VLNT compared with CDT group (8.3 ± 34.7%; p = 0.02)
Akita et al., 201444 LE Secondary •29 patients underwent LVB surgery (mean follow-up, 12.0 ± 4.9 mo)
•24 patients underwent CDT alone (mean follow-up, 12.5 ± 7.7 mo)
•In LVB group, LEL index of limb circumference significantly improved; ICG imaging improved in 17 patients; CDT discontinued in 13 and decreased in 4
•In CDT group, LEL index was similar; 15 had stable ICG imaging and 9 had deterioration, 4 of which increased compression therapy requirements
Comparison of LVB with VLNT Engel et al., 2017124 UE Secondary •37 patients underwent MBR (mean follow-up, 12.7 ± 1.8 mo
•87 patients did not undergo MBR (mean follow-up, 25.5 ± 8.9 mo)
•Outcomes of CDT alone, LVB, and VLNT compared (submental LN flap, n = 27; groin LN flap, n = 18; all transferred to wrist or elbow)
•In both groups, mean circumferential reduction rates significantly greater with VLNT than with LVB or CDT
•CDT alone, 9.8 ± 2.5% (n = 30); LVB alone, 17.3 ± 6.0% (n = 23); VLNT alone, 34.0 ± 6.9% (n = 34)
•MBR plus CDT, 6.5 ± 2.7% (n = 22); MBR plus LVB, 10.7 ± 8.9% (n = 4); MBR plus VLNT, 24.4 ± 8.8% (n = 11)
•Iatrogenic LE lymphedema occurred in one patient
Akita et al., 201545 LE Secondary •13 patients underwent supraclavicular VLNT (to distal thigh or lower leg)
•43 patients underwent LVB
•Improvement in circumference reduction rate using LEL index seen in both groups; however, significantly better in VLNT group
•ICG lymphography or lymphoscintigraphy improved in significantly more patients following VLNT (n = 7) than LVB (n = 10)
Comparison of different VLN flaps Ciudad et al., 201743 UE and LE Primary and secondary •Comparative outcomes between groin LN, supraclavicular LN, and gastroepiploic LN flaps with ISL stage II and III lymphedema (2-yr follow-up) •Similar good outcomes for patients with stage II disease [groin LN, 28.5 ± 7.8% (n = 10); supraclavicular LN, 26.2 ± 9.8% (n = 10); and gastroepiploic LN flap, 30.4 ± 7.3% (n = 25)]
•For stage III disease, results were modest, and nonsignificant for groin LN flap group [groin LN, 11.7 ± 10.2% (n = 3); supraclavicular LN, 18.9 ± 8.90% (n = 15); and gastroepiploic LN, 18.2 ± 11% (n = 17)]
•Complications: groin LN group, 30.8%; supraclavicular LN group, 28%; gastroepiploic LN flap group, 24%; no donor-site lymphedema
•In patients with prior cellulitis, no further episodes in 61.4%, and significant reduction in 27.7%
Akita et al., 201774 UE Secondary •13 patients underwent chimeric DIEP-groin LN flap (mean follow-up, 13.9 ± 6.5 mo)
•14 patients underwent groin LN flap alone (to axilla; mean follow-up, 13.2 ± 4.4 mo)
•Mean circumference reduction rate using UEL index similar at 6 mo postoperatively: DIEP-groin group, 13.9 ± 4.1; groin LN group, 13.2 ± 1.5
•In DIEP-groin LN group, significant improvement using ICG lymphography in 6 patients; in groin LN flap–only group, significant improvement in 4 patients
•In DIEP-groin LN group, compression therapy discontinued in 6 patients, reduced in 4 patients; in groin LN flap–only group, compression therapy discontinued in 3 patients
R
CT, randomized controlled trial; UE, upper extremity; LE, lower extremity; BCRL, breast cancer–related lymphedema; LVB, lymphovenous bypass; VLNT, vascularized lymph node transplant; CDT, complete decongestive therapy; LEL, lower extremity lymphedema; UEL, upper extremity lymphedema; MBR, microvascular breast reconstruction; ISL, International Society of Lymphology.

Table 3. - Limb Volume Reduction Outcomes of Cohort Studies for Vascularized Lymph Node Flaps
Reference No. of Flaps Flap Affected Extremity Recipient Site Mean Limb Volume Reduction ± SD (%) Mean Follow-Up ± SD (mo)
Gustafsson et al., 201898 35 Submental LN Lower Ankle 19.8 ± 9.2 12
Gratzon et al., 201722 50 Groin LN, n = 42; lateral thoracic LN, n = 5; supraclavicular LN, n = 3 Upper Axilla 58.7 12
Dionyssiou et al., 201623 18 Groin LN Upper Axilla 57 12
Liu et al., 2018123 30 Groin LN Upper Axilla 47.1 ± 27.9 22.1 ± 7.8
Nguyen et al., 201573 29 DIEP/MS-TRAM-groin LN Upper Axilla 48 11 (range, 3–33)
Lin et al., 200975 13 Groin LN Upper Wrist 50.5 ± 6.9 56.3 ± 27.1
Cheng et al., 201348 10 Groin LN Upper Wrist, 8; elbow, 2 40.4 ± 16.1 39.1 ± 15.7
Engel et al., 2017124 45 Submental LN, n = 27; groin LN, n = 18 Upper Wrist, 31; elbow, 14 Group I*, 34.0 ± 6.9; group II, 24.9 ± 10.0 19.1 ± 5.3
Patel et al., 201536 15 Groin LN, n = 13; submental LN, n = 2 Upper Distal 24.4 ± 14.7 25.4 ± 8.4
Patel et al., 201536 10 Submental LN Lower Distal 35.2 ± 23.9 16.1 ± 4
L
N, lymph node; DIEP, deep inferior epigastric artery perforator; MS-TRAM, muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous.
*
Thirty-four patients that received simultaneous microsurgical breast reconstruction.
Eleven patients that underwent vascularized lymph node transplantation only.

Back to Top | Article Outline

SUCTION-ASSISTED LIPECTOMY DEBULKING PROCEDURE

The severe fibroadipose soft-tissue hypertrophy that occurs in chronic lymphedema can only be removed directly by lipectomy.24 Traditional excisional operations that result in unacceptable scarring and morbidity have been replaced except in severe cases by minimally invasive suction-assisted lipectomy125,126 (Fig. 13). Large-volume liposuction debulking provides only minimal physiologic improvement of the lymphatic system,127,128 and therefore patients need to wear compression garments lifelong to prevent recurrence. Selected patients may be candidates for staged physiologic surgery to reduce dependence on continuous compression garment use120,121 (Fig. 14).

Fig. 13.

Fig. 13.

Fig. 14.

Fig. 14.

Optimization with complete decongestive therapy is performed preoperatively until there is minimal or no pitting edema; then, custom compression garments are measured preoperatively (using the unaffected extremity as a template) and are applied intraoperatively. Tumescent liposuction is performed, and for large volumes, a tourniquet is used to reduce blood loss. Power-assisted devices are beneficial where the soft tissues are fibrous.

Back to Top | Article Outline

CLINICAL OUTCOMES OF SUCTION-ASSISTED LIPECTOMY DEBULKING PROCEDURE

Several studies have confirmed the efficacy and long-term stability of large-volume suction-assisted lipectomy debulking for reducing limb volume to that similar to the unaffected side for both the upper127,129,130 and lower128,131–133 extremities (Table 4). In addition, the incidence of cellulitis is reduced dramatically postoperatively.134

Table 4. - Outcomes from Cohort Studies of the Suction-Assisted Lipectomy Debulking Procedure for Lymphedema
Study No. of Patients Affected Extremity Mean Limb Volume Reduction (%) Postoperative Time Interval (yr)
Boyages et al., 2015127 21 Upper, 15; lower, 6 Upper, 90.2; lower, 88.2 0.5
Damstra et al., 2009129 37 Upper 118 1
Lamprou et al., 2017131 88 Lower Secondary, 101; primary, 79 2
Stewart and Munnoch, 2017132 69 Lower 90 5
Schaverien et al., 2012130 12 Upper 136 5
Brorson, 2015133 146 Upper >100 21

Back to Top | Article Outline

DIRECT EXCISIONAL DEBULKING PROCEDURES

For patients with large-volume advanced fibrotic disease, suction-assisted lipectomy is ineffective and excisional techniques are required. These include staged direct excision (modified Homan’s procedure) (Fig. 15),43,135,136 and, in extreme cases, excision and skin grafting (Charles procedure).137

Fig. 15.

Fig. 15.

Back to Top | Article Outline

ALGORITHMS FOR SURGICAL MANAGEMENT

Several algorithms have been described to aid in decision-making for surgical intervention for lymphedema,43,46,48,138 and treatment plans vary between institutions. Evidence supports that lymphovenous bypass is indicated for early-stage lymphedema, vascularized lymph node transplant for advanced lymphedema, and debulking procedures for excision of soft-tissue excess.34,37,38,43,46,48,138,139 The combination of de bulking, either before,140 synchronously with,43 or following120,121 vascularized lymph node transplant, extends indications for physiologic surgery to those with significant soft-tissue excess resulting from chronic lymphedema. In addition to previously published algorithms, an evidenced-based decision aid for patients presenting with symptoms of lymphedema is outlined in Figure 16.

Fig. 16.

Fig. 16.

Back to Top | Article Outline

ASSESSING OUTCOMES OF SURGICAL INTERVENTION

Outcome metrics for lymphatic surgery include limb volume, incidence of cellulitis, physiologic downstaging, and patient-reported outcomes. Change in limb volume is most commonly measured by limb circumferential measurements (including derived volumetric calculations) or by using a Perometer (Pero-System Messgeräte GmbH, Wuppertal, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany). Bioimpedance spectroscopy can also be used to comparatively measure the extracellular fluid.141 Physiologic downstaging can be evaluated using either radioisotope lymphoscintigraphy or indocyanine green lymphography. The Lymphedema Quality of Life Tool, Upper Limb Lymphedema-27, and Lymphedema Life Impact Scale142 are validated tools for patient-reported outcomes in patients with lymphedema, and patient-reported functional disability can be measured using validated tools including the Disabilities of the Arm, Hand, and Shoulder questionnaire for the upper extremity, and the Lower Extremity Functional Scale for the lower extremity.

Back to Top | Article Outline

NEW AND EMERGING TREATMENTS

Several new and emerging therapies hold promise for the treatment of lymphedema.143 Mesenchymal stem cells can differentiate into functional lymphatic endothelial-like cells,144 and preliminary clinical research suggests that both bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells145,146 and adipose tissue–derived mesenchymal stem cells)147 may provide therapeutic benefit. Experimental studies using exogenous delivery of VEGF-C at supraphysiologic doses or gene therapy delivery with adenoviral vectors have demonstrated lymphangiogenesis and decreased lymphedema.148 Tacrolimus, which inhibits T-cell proliferation and differentiation, when applied topically, prevented the development of lymphedema in an experimental model.149 Leukotriene B4 levels are significantly elevated in postsurgical lymphedema,150 and antagonism by ketoprofen has demonstrated efficacy in experimental and clinical lymphedema.151,152 Specifically, Bestatin (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, Mo.), an inhibitor of the biosynthetic enzyme for leukotriene B4, has demonstrated efficacy in experimental studies,150 and the results of clinical trials are awaited.

Back to Top | Article Outline

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical treatment is effective at alleviating the symptom burden, reducing the risk of cellulitis, and improving function and appearance in patients with lymphedema refractory to conservative treatment. Results from future comparative outcomes studies are awaited to better define surgical treatment algorithms, in particular for newer and combination therapies, and from clinical studies of novel surgical treatments and pharmaceutical therapeutics.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Mendoza N, Li A, Gill A, Tyring S. Filariasis: Diagnosis and treatment. Dermatol Ther. 2009;22:475–490.
2. Moffatt CJ, Franks PJ, Doherty DC, et al. Lymphoedema: An underestimated health problem. QJM 2003;96:731–738.
3. Rockson SG, Rivera KK. Estimating the population burden of lymphedema. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1131:147–154.
4. Voss RK, Cromwell KD, Chiang YJ, et al. The long-term risk of upper-extremity lymphedema is two-fold higher in breast cancer patients than in melanoma patients. J Surg Oncol. 2015;112:834–840.
5. Shaitelman SF, Chiang YJ, Griffin KD, et al. Radiation therapy targets and the risk of breast cancer-related lymphedema: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;162:201–215.
6. Kuroda K, Yamamoto Y, Yanagisawa M, et al. Risk factors and a prediction model for lower limb lymphedema following lymphadenectomy in gynecologic cancer: A hospital-based retrospective cohort study. BMC Womens Health 2017;17:50.
7. Hareyama H, Hada K, Goto K, et al. Prevalence, classification, and risk factors for postoperative lower extremity lymphedema in women with gynecologic malignancies: A retrospective study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2015;25:751–757.
8. Connell FC, Gordon K, Brice G, et al. The classification and diagnostic algorithm for primary lymphatic dysplasia: An update from 2010 to include molecular findings. Clin Genet. 2013;84:303–314.
9. Karkkainen MJ, Ferrell RE, Lawrence EC, et al. Missense mutations interfere with VEGFR-3 signalling in primary lymphoedema. Nat Genet. 2000;25:153–159.
10. Rutkowski JM, Swartz MA. A driving force for change: Interstitial flow as a morphoregulator. Trends Cell Biol. 2007;17:44–50.
11. Mihara M, Hara H, Hayashi Y, et al. Pathological steps of cancer-related lymphedema: Histological changes in the collecting lymphatic vessels after lymphadenectomy. PLoS One 2012;7:e41126.
12. Zampell JC, Yan A, Elhadad S, Avraham T, Weitman E, Mehrara BJ. CD4(+) cells regulate fibrosis and lymphangiogenesis in response to lymphatic fluid stasis. PLoS One 2012;7:e49940.
13. Avraham T, Daluvoy S, Zampell J, et al. Blockade of transforming growth factor-beta1 accelerates lymphatic regeneration during wound repair. Am J Pathol. 2010;177:3202–3214.
14. Avraham T, Zampell JC, Yan A, et al. Th2 differentiation is necessary for soft tissue fibrosis and lymphatic dysfunction resulting from lymphedema. FASEB J. 2013;27:1114–1126.
15. Savetsky IL, Ghanta S, Gardenier JC, et al. Th2 cytokines inhibit lymphangiogenesis. PLoS One 2015;10:e0126908.
16. Liao S, Cheng G, Conner DA, et al. Impaired lymphatic contraction associated with immunosuppression. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:18784–18789.
17. Torrisi JS, Hespe GE, Cuzzone DA, et al. Inhibition of inflammation and iNOS improves lymphatic function in obesity. Sci Rep. 2016;6:19817.
18. Nitti MD, Hespe GE, Kataru RP, et al. Obesity-induced lymphatic dysfunction is reversible with weight loss. J Physiol. 2016;594:7073–7087.
19. Chang DW, Masia J, Garza R III, Skoracki R, Neligan PC. Lymphedema: Surgical and medical therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(Suppl):209S–218S.
20. Silva AK, Chang DW. Vascularized lymph node transfer and lymphovenous bypass: Novel treatment strategies for symptomatic lymphedema. J Surg Oncol. 2016;113:932–939.
21. Suami H, Chang DW. Overview of surgical treatments for breast cancer-related lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:1853–1863.
22. Gratzon A, Schultz J, Secrest K, Lee K, Feiner J, Klein RD. Clinical and psychosocial outcomes of vascularized lymph node transfer for the treatment of upper extremity lymphedema after breast cancer therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:1475–1481.
23. Dionyssiou D, Demiri E, Tsimponis A, et al. A randomized control study of treating secondary stage II breast cancer-related lymphoedema with free lymph node transfer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;156:73–79.
24. Brorson H, Ohlin K, Olsson G, Karlsson MK. Breast cancer-related chronic arm lymphedema is associated with excess adipose and muscle tissue. Lymphat Res Biol. 2009;7:3–10.
25. Narushima M, Yamamoto T, Ogata F, Yoshimatsu H, Mihara M, Koshima I. Indocyanine green lymphography findings in limb lymphedema. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2016;32:72–79.
26. Hara H, Mihara M, Seki Y, Todokoro T, Iida T, Koshima I. Comparison of indocyanine green lymphographic findings with the conditions of collecting lymphatic vessels of limbs in patients with lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:1612–1618.
27. Chang DW. Lymphaticovenular bypass for lymphedema management in breast cancer patients: A prospective study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:752–758.
28. Neligan PC, Kung TA, Maki JH. MR lymphangiography in the treatment of lymphedema. J Surg Oncol. 2017;115:18–22.
29. Kleinhans E, Baumeister RG, Hahn D, Siuda S, Büll U, Moser E. Evaluation of transport kinetics in lymphoscintigraphy: Follow-up study in patients with transplanted lymphatic vessels. Eur J Nucl Med. 1985;10:349–352.
30. Cheng MH, Pappalardo M, Lin C, Kuo CF, Lin CY, Chung KC. Validity of the novel Taiwan lymphoscintigraphy staging and correlation of Cheng lymphedema grading for unilateral extremity lymphedema. Ann Surg. 2018;268:513–525.
31. Bae JS, Yoo RE, Choi SH, et al. Evaluation of lymphedema in upper extremities by MR lymphangiography: Comparison with lymphoscintigraphy. Magn Reson Imaging 2018;49:63–70.
32. Dayan JH, Dayan E, Smith ML. Reverse lymphatic mapping: A new technique for maximizing safety in vascularized lymph node transfer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:277–285.
33. Suami H, Chang DW, Yamada K, Kimata Y. Use of indocyanine green fluorescent lymphography for evaluating dynamic lymphatic status. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:74e–76e.
34. Campisi C, Bellini C, Campisi C, Accogli S, Bonioli E, Boccardo F. Microsurgery for lymphedema: Clinical research and long-term results. Microsurgery 2010;30:256–260.
35. Executive Committee. The diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema: 2016 consensus document of the International Society of Lymphology. Lymphology 2016;49:170–84.
36. Patel KM, Lin CY, Cheng MH. A prospective evaluation of lymphedema-specific quality-of-life outcomes following vascularized lymph node transfer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:2424–2430.
37. Mikami T, Hosono M, Yabuki Y, et al. Classification of lymphoscintigraphy and relevance to surgical indication for lymphaticovenous anastomosis in upper limb lymphedema. Lymphology 2011;44:155–167.
38. Chang DW, Suami H, Skoracki R. A prospective analysis of 100 consecutive lymphovenous bypass cases for treatment of extremity lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:1305–1314.
39. Arrivé L, Derhy S, Dlimi C, El Mouhadi S, Monnier-Cholley L, Becker C. Noncontrast magnetic resonance lymphography for evaluation of lymph node transfer for secondary upper limb lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:806e–811e.
40. Yamamoto T, Yamamoto N, Doi K, et al. Indocyanine green-enhanced lymphography for upper extremity lymphedema: A novel severity staging system using dermal backflow patterns. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:941–947.
41. Yamamoto T, Matsuda N, Doi K, et al. The earliest finding of indocyanine green lymphography in asymptomatic limbs of lower extremity lymphedema patients secondary to cancer treatment: The modified dermal backflow stage and concept of subclinical lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:314e–321e.
42. Akita S, Nakamura R, Yamamoto N, et al. Early detection of lymphatic disorder and treatment for lymphedema following breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:192–202.
43. Ciudad P, Agko M, Perez Coca JJ, et al. Comparison of long-term clinical outcomes among different vascularized lymph node transfers: 6-year experience of a single center’s approach to the treatment of lymphedema. J Surg Oncol. 2017;116:671–682.
44. Akita S, Mitsukawa N, Kuriyama M, et al. Suitable therapy options for sub-clinical and early-stage lymphoedema patients. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014;67:520–525.
45. Akita S, Mitsukawa N, Kuriyama M, et al. Comparison of vascularized supraclavicular lymph node transfer and lymphaticovenular anastomosis for advanced stage lower extremity lymphedema. Ann Plast Surg. 2015;74:573–579.
46. Kung TA, Champaneria MC, Maki JH, Neligan PC. Current concepts in the surgical management of lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:1003e–1013e.
47. Schaverien MV, Moeller JA, Cleveland SD. Nonoperative treatment of lymphedema. Semin Plast Surg. 2018;32:17–21.
48. Cheng MH, Chen SC, Henry SL, Tan BK, Lin MC, Huang JJ. Vascularized groin lymph node flap transfer for postmastectomy upper limb lymphedema: Flap anatomy, recipient sites, and outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:1286–1298.
49. Yamamoto R, Yamamoto T. Effectiveness of the treatment-phase of two-phase complex decongestive physiotherapy for the treatment of extremity lymphedema. Int J Clin Oncol. 2007;12:463–468.
50. Koshima I, Inagawa K, Urushibara K, Moriguchi T. Supermicrosurgical lymphaticovenular anastomosis for the treatment of lymphedema in the upper extremities. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2000;16:437–442.
51. Masia J, Pons G, Nardulli M. Combined surgical treatment in breast cancer-related lymphedema. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2016;32:16–27.
52. Mardonado AA, Chen R, Chang DW. The use of supraclavicular free flap with vascularized lymph node transfer for treatment of lymphedema: A prospective study of 100 consecutive cases. J Surg Oncol. 2017;115:68–71.
53. Pain SJ, Vowler S, Purushotham AD. Axillary vein abnormalities contribute to development of lymphoedema after surgery for breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2005;92:311–315.
54. Raju S, Furrh JB IV, Neglén P. Diagnosis and treatment of venous lymphedema. J Vasc Surg. 2012;55:141–149.
55. Sachanandani NS, Chu SY, Ho OA, Cheong CF, Lin MC, Cheng MH. Lymphedema and concomitant venous comorbidity in the extremity: Comprehensive evaluation, management strategy, and outcomes. J Surg Oncol. 2018;118:941–952.
56. Lee KT, Park JW, Mun GH. Serial two-year follow-up after lymphaticovenular anastomosis for the treatment of lymphedema. Microsurgery 2017;37:763–770.
57. Onoda S, Kimata Y, Matsumoto K, Yamada K, Tokuyama E, Sugiyama N. Histologic evaluation of lymphaticovenular anastomosis outcomes in the rat experimental model: Comparison of cases with patency and obstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:83e–91e.
58. Visconti G, Salgarello M, Hayashi A. The recipient venule in supermicrosurgical lymphaticovenular anastomosis: Flow dynamic classification and correlation with surgical outcomes. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2018;34:581–589.
59. Yang JC, Wu SC, Chiang MH, Lin WC. Targeting reflux-free veins with a vein visualizer to identify the ideal recipient vein preoperatively for optimal lymphaticovenous anastomosis in treating lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141:793–797.
60. Ogata F, Narushima M, Mihara M, Azuma R, Morimoto Y, Koshima I. Intraoperative lymphography using indocyanine green dye for near-infrared fluorescence labeling in lymphedema. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;59:180–184.
61. Ogata F, Azuma R, Kikuchi M, Koshima I, Morimoto Y. Novel lymphography using indocyanine green dye for near-infrared fluorescence labeling. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;58:652–655.
62. Ito R, Wu CT, Lin MC, Cheng MH. Successful treatment of early-stage lower extremity lymphedema with side-to-end lymphovenous anastomosis with indocyanine green lymphography assisted. Microsurgery 2016;36:310–315.
63. Mihara M, Hara H, Iida T, et al. Antegrade and retrograde lymphatico-venous anastomosis for cancer-related lymphedema with lymphatic valve dysfunction and lymphatic varix. Microsurgery 2012;32:580–584.
64. Chen WF, Yamamoto T, Fisher M, Liao J, Carr J. The “octopus” lymphaticovenular anastomosis: Evolving beyond the standard supermicrosurgical technique. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2015;31:450–457.
65. Campisi CC, Ryan M, Boccardo F, Campisi C. A single-site technique of multiple lymphatic-venous anastomoses for the treatment of peripheral lymphedema: Long-term clinical outcome. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2016;32:42–49.
66. Narushima M, Mihara M, Yamamoto Y, Iida T, Koshima I, Mundinger GS. The intravascular stenting method for treatment of extremity lymphedema with multiconfiguration lymphaticovenous anastomoses. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:935–943.
67. Feldman S, Bansil H, Ascherman J, et al. Single institution experience with lymphatic microsurgical preventive healing approach (LYMPHA) for the primary prevention of lymphedema. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3296–3301.
68. Boccardo F, Valenzano M, Costantini S, et al. LYMPHA technique to prevent secondary lower limb lymphedema. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3558–3563.
69. Boccardo F, Casabona F, De Cian F, et al. Lymphatic microsurgical preventing healing approach (LYMPHA) for primary surgical prevention of breast cancer-related lymphedema: Over 4 years follow-up. Microsurgery 2014;34:421–424.
70. Winters H, Tielemans HJ, Sprangers PN, Ulrich DJ. Peri-operative care for patients undergoing lymphaticovenular anastomosis: A systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;70:178–188.
71. Becker C, Assouad J, Riquet M, Hidden G. Postmastectomy lymphedema: Long-term results following microsurgical lymph node transplantation. Ann Surg. 2006;243:313–315.
72. Saaristo AM, Niemi TS, Viitanen TP, Tervala TV, Hartiala P, Suominen EA. Microvascular breast reconstruction and lymph node transfer for postmastectomy lymphedema patients. Ann Surg. 2012;255:468–473.
73. Nguyen AT, Chang EI, Suami H, Chang DW. An algorithmic approach to simultaneous vascularized lymph node transfer with microvascular breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:2919–2924.
74. Akita S, Tokumoto H, Yamaji Y, et al. Contribution of simultaneous breast reconstruction by deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap to the efficacy of vascularized lymph node transfer in patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2017;33:571–578.
75. Lin CH, Ali R, Chen SC, et al. Vascularized groin lymph node transfer using the wrist as a recipient site for management of postmastectomy upper extremity lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:1265–1275.
76. Sapountzis S, Singhal D, Rashid A, Ciudad P, Meo D, Chen HC. Lymph node flap based on the right transverse cervical artery as a donor site for lymph node transfer. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;73:398–401.
77. Steinbacher J, Tinhofer IE, Meng S, et al. The surgical anatomy of the supraclavicular lymph node flap: A basis for the free vascularized lymph node transfer. J Surg Oncol. 2017;115:60–62.
78. Cheng MH, Huang JJ, Huang JJ, et al. A novel approach to the treatment of lower extremity lymphedema by transferring a vascularized submental lymph node flap to the ankle. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126:93–98.
79. Barreiro GC, Baptista RR, Kasai KE, et al. Lymph fasciocutaneous lateral thoracic artery flap: Anatomical study and clinical use. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2014;30:389–396.
80. Tinhofer IE, Meng S, Steinbacher J, et al. The surgical anatomy of the vascularized lateral thoracic artery lymph node flap: A cadaver study. J Surg Oncol. 2017;116:1062–1068.
81. Smith ML, Molina BJ, Dayan E, et al. Heterotopic vascularized lymph node transfer to the medial calf without a skin paddle for restoration of lymphatic function: Proof of concept. J Surg Oncol. 2017;115:90–95.
82. Ciudad P, Maruccia M, Socas J, et al. The laparoscopic right gastroepiploic lymph node flap transfer for upper and lower limb lymphedema: Technique and outcomes. Microsurgery 2017;37:197–205.
83. Nguyen AT, Suami H, Hanasono MM, Womack VA, Wong FC, Chang EI. Long-term outcomes of the minimally invasive free vascularized omental lymphatic flap for the treatment of lymphedema. J Surg Oncol. 2017;115:84–89.
84. Coriddi M, Wee C, Meyerson J, Eiferman D, Skoracki R. Vascularized jejunal mesenteric lymph node transfer: A novel surgical treatment for extremity lymphedema. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225:650–657.
85. Schaverien MV, Hofstetter WL, Selber JC. Vascularized jejunal mesenteric lymph node transfer for lymphedema: A novel approach. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;141:468–469.
86. Asdourian MS, Swaroop MN, Sayegh HE, et al. Association between precautionary behaviors and breast cancer-related lymphedema in patients undergoing bilateral surgery. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:3934–3941.
87. Shesol BF, Nakashima R, Alavi A, Hamilton RW. Successful lymph node transplantation in rats, with restoration of lymphatic function. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1979;63:817–823.
88. Chen HC, O’Brien BM, Rogers IW, Pribaz JJ, Eaton CJ. Lymph node transfer for the treatment of obstructive lymphoedema in the canine model. Br J Plast Surg. 1990;43:578–586.
89. Patel KM, Lin CY, Cheng MH. From theory to evidence: Long-term evaluation of the mechanism of action and flap integration of distal vascularized lymph node transfers. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2015;31:26–30.
90. Suami H, Scaglioni MF, Dixon KA, Tailor RC. Interaction between vascularized lymph node transfer and recipient lymphatics after lymph node dissection: A pilot study in a canine model. J Surg Res. 2016;204:418–427.
91. Ito R, Zelken J, Yang CY, Lin CY, Cheng MH. Proposed pathway and mechanism of vascularized lymph node flaps. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;141:182–188.
92. Cheng MH, Huang JJ, Wu CW, et al. The mechanism of vascularized lymph node transfer for lymphedema: Natural lymphaticovenous drainage. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:192–198.
93. Yan A, Avraham T, Zampell JC, Aschen SZ, Mehrara BJ. Mechanisms of lymphatic regeneration after tissue transfer. PLoS One 2011;6:e17201.
94. Aschen SZ, Farias-Eisner G, Cuzzone DA, et al. Lymph node transplantation results in spontaneous lymphatic reconnection and restoration of lymphatic flow. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:301–310.
95. Viitanen TP, Visuri MT, Hartiala P, et al. Lymphatic vessel function and lymphatic growth factor secretion after microvascular lymph node transfer in lymphedema patients. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2013;1:1–9.
96. Huang JJ, Gardenier JC, Hespe GE, et al. Lymph node transplantation decreases swelling and restores immune responses in a transgenic model of lymphedema. PLoS One 2016;11:e0168259.
97. Nguyen DH, Chou PY, Hsieh YH, et al. Quantity of lymph nodes correlates with improvement in lymphatic drainage in treatment of hind limb lymphedema with lymph node flap transfer in rats. Microsurgery 2016;36:239–245.
98. Gustafsson J, Chu SY, Chan WH, Cheng MH. Correlation between quantity of transferred lymph nodes and outcome in vascularized submental lymph node flap transfer for lower limb lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142:1056–1063.
99. Vignes S, Blanchard M, Yannoutsos A, Arrault M. Complications of autologous lymph-node transplantation for limb lymphoedema. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013;45:516–520.
100. Scaglioni MF, Suami H. Lymphatic anatomy of the inguinal region in aid of vascularized lymph node flap harvesting. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015;68:419–427.
101. Dayan JH, Dayan E, Kagen A, et al. The use of magnetic resonance angiography in vascularized groin lymph node transfer: An anatomic study. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2014;30:41–45.
102. Viitanen TP, Mäki MT, Seppänen MP, Suominen EA, Saaristo AM. Donor-site lymphatic function after microvascular lymph node transfer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:1246–1253.
103. Gharb BB, Rampazzo A, Spanio di Spilimbergo S, Xu ES, Chung KP, Chen HC. Vascularized lymph node transfer based on the hilar perforators improves the outcome in upper limb lymphedema. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;67:589–593.
104. Chen R, Mu L, Zhang H, et al. Simultaneous breast reconstruction and treatment of breast cancer-related upper arm lymphedema with lymphatic lower abdominal flap. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;73(Suppl 1):S12–S17.
105. Tourani SS, Taylor GI, Ashton MW. Scarpa fascia preservation in abdominoplasty: Does it preserve the lymphatics? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136:258–262.
106. Cheng MH, Lin CY, Patel KM. A prospective clinical assessment of anatomic variability of the submental vascularized lymph node flap. J Surg Oncol. 2017;115:43–47.
107. Tzou CH, Meng S, Ines T, et al. Surgical anatomy of the vascularized submental lymph node flap: Anatomic study of correlation of submental artery perforators and quantity of submental lymph node. J Surg Oncol. 2017;115:54–59.
108. Poccia I, Lin CY, Cheng MH. Platysma-sparing vascularized submental lymph node flap transfer for extremity lymphedema. J Surg Oncol. 2017;115:48–53.
109. Suami H, O’Neill JK, Pan WR, Taylor GI. Superficial lymphatic system of the upper torso: Preliminary radiographic results in human cadavers. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121:1231–1239.
110. Suami H, Taylor GI, Pan WR. The lymphatic territories of the upper limb: Anatomical study and clinical implications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119:1813–1822.
111. Nos C, Clough KB, Bonnier P, et al. Upper outer boundaries of the axillary dissection: Result of the SENTIBRAS protocol. Multicentric protocol using axillary reverse mapping in breast cancer patients requiring axillary dissection. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42:1827–1833.
112. Huang JJ. Greene AK, Slavin SA, Brorson H. Lymph node transfer to distal extremity. in: Lymphedema: Presentation, Diagnosis, and Treatment. 2015:Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 279–288.
113. Batista BN, Germain M, Faria JC, Becker C. Lymph node flap transfer for patients with secondary lower limb lymphedema. Microsurgery 2017;37:29–33.
114. Goldsmith HS. Long term evaluation of omental transposition for chronic lymphedema. Ann Surg. 1974;180:847–849.
115. Agko M, Ciudad P, Chen HC. Histo-anatomical basis of the gastroepiploic vascularized lymph node flap: The overlooked “micro” lymph nodes. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;17:1748–6815.
116. Ciudad P, Manrique OJ, Date S, et al. Double gastroepiploic vascularized lymph node transfers to middle and distal limb for the treatment of lymphedema. Microsurgery 2017;37:771–779.
117. Borchard F, Betz P. Number and size of perigastric lymph nodes in human adults without gastric cancer. Surg Radiol Anat. 1991;13:117–121.
118. Howell AC, Gould DJ, Mayfield C, Samakar K, Hassani C, Patel KM. Anatomical basis of the gastroepiploic vascularized lymph node transfer: A radiographic evaluation using computed tomographic angiography. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142:1046–1052.
119. Kenworthy EO, Nelson JA, Verma R, Mbabuike J, Mehrara BJ, Dayan JH. Double vascularized omentum lymphatic transplant (VOLT) for the treatment of lymphedema. J Surg Oncol. 2018;117:1413–1419.
120. Agko M, Ciudad P, Chen HC. Staged surgical treatment of extremity lymphedema with dual gastroepiploic vascularized lymph node transfers followed by suction-assisted lipectomy: A prospective study. J Surg Oncol. 2018;117:1148–1156.
121. Nicoli F, Constantinides J, Ciudad P, et al. Free lymph node flap transfer and laser-assisted liposuction: A combined technique for the treatment of moderate upper limb lymphedema. Lasers Med Sci. 2015;30:1377–1385.
122. Campisi CC, Ryan M, Boccardo F, Campisi C. Fibro-lipo-lymph-aspiration with a lymph vessel sparing procedure to treat advanced lymphedema after multiple lymphatic-venous anastomoses: The complete treatment protocol. Ann Plast Surg. 2017;78:184–190.
123. Liu HL, Pang SY, Lee CC, Wong MM, Chung HP, Chan YW. Orthotopic transfer of vascularized groin lymph node flap in the treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema: Clinical results, lymphoscintigraphy findings, and proposed mechanism. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71:1033–1040.
124. Engel H, Lin CY, Huang JJ, Cheng MH. Outcomes of lymphedema microsurgery for breast cancer-related lymphedema with or without microvascular breast reconstruction. Ann Surg. 2018;268:1076–1083.
125. Brorson H, Svensson H. Complete reduction of lymphoedema of the arm by liposuction after breast cancer. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1997;31:137–143.
126. Hoffner M, Bagheri S, Hansson E, Manjer J, Troëng T, Brorson H. SF-36 shows increased quality of life following complete reduction of postmastectomy lymphedema with liposuction. Lymphat Res Biol. 2017;15:87–98.
127. Boyages J, Kastanias K, Koelmeyer LA, et al. Liposuction for advanced lymphedema: A multidisciplinary approach for complete reduction of arm and leg swelling. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(Suppl 3):S1263–S1270.
128. Greene AK, Voss SD, Maclellan RA. Liposuction for swelling in patients with lymphedema. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1788–1789.
129. Damstra RJ, Voesten HG, Klinkert P, Brorson H. Circumferential suction-assisted lipectomy for lymphoedema after surgery for breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2009;96:859–864.
130. Schaverien MV, Munro KJ, Baker PA, Munnoch DA. Liposuction for chronic lymphoedema of the upper limb: 5 years of experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012;65:935–942.
131. Lamprou DA, Voesten HG, Damstra RJ, Wikkeling OR. Circumferential suction-assisted lipectomy in the treatment of primary and secondary end-stage lymphoedema of the leg. Br J Surg. 2017;104:84–89.
132. Stewart CJ, Munnoch DA. Liposuction as an effective treatment for lower extremity lymphoedema: A single surgeon’s experience over nine years. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71:239–245.
133. Brorson H. Complete reduction of arm lymphedema following breast cancer: A prospective twenty-one years’ study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136:134–135.
134. Lee D, Piller N, Hoffner M, Manjer J, Brorson H. Liposuction of postmastectomy arm lymphedema decreases the incidence of erysipelas. Lymphology 2016;49:85–92.
135. Salgado CJ, Sassu P, Gharb BB, Spanio di Spilimbergo S, Mardini S, Chen HC. Radical reduction of upper extremity lymphedema with preservation of perforators. Ann Plast Surg. 2009;63:302–306.
136. Salgado CJ, Mardini S, Spanio S, Tang WR, Sassu P, Chen HC. Radical reduction of lymphedema with preservation of perforators. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;59:173–179.
137. Sapountzis S, Ciudad P, Lim SY, et al. Modified Charles procedure and lymph node flap transfer for advanced lower extremity lymphedema. Microsurgery 2014;34:439–447.
138. Masià J, Pons G, Rodríguez-Bauzà E. Barcelona lymphedema algorithm for surgical treatment in breast cancer-related lymphedema. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2016;32:329–335.
139. Granzow JW, Soderberg JM, Kaji AH, Dauphine C. An effective system of surgical treatment of lymphedema. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:1189–1194.
140. Granzow JW, Soderberg JM, Dauphine C. A novel two-stage surgical approach to treat chronic lymphedema. Breast J. 2014;20:420–422.
141. Coroneos CJ, Wong FC, DeSnyder SM, Shaitelman SF, Schaverien MV. Correlation of L-Dex bioimpedance spectroscopy with limb volume and lymphatic function in lymphedema. Lymphat Res Biol. 2019;17:301–307.
142. Pusic AL, Cemal Y, Albornoz C, et al. Quality of life among breast cancer patients with lymphedema: A systematic review of patient-reported outcome instruments and outcomes. J Cancer Surviv. 2013;7:83–92.
143. Schaverien MV, Aldrich MB. New and emerging treatments for lymphedema. Semin Plast Surg. 2018;32:48–52.
144. Conrad C, Niess H, Huss R, et al. Multipotent mesenchymal stem cells acquire a lymphendothelial phenotype and enhance lymphatic regeneration in vivo. Circulation 2009;119:281–289.
145. Hou C, Wu X, Jin X. Autologous bone marrow stromal cells transplantation for the treatment of secondary arm lymphedema: A prospective controlled study in patients with breast cancer related lymphedema. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2008;38:670–674.
146. Maldonado GE, Pérez CA, Covarrubias EE, et al. Autologous stem cells for the treatment of post-mastectomy lymphedema: A pilot study. Cytotherapy 2011;13:1249–1255.
147. Toyserkani NM, Jensen CH, Andersen DC, Sheikh SP, Sørensen JA. Treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema with adipose-derived regenerative cells and fat grafts: A feasibility and safety study. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2017;6:1666–1672.
148. Baker A, Kim H, Semple JL, et al. Experimental assessment of pro-lymphangiogenic growth factors in the treatment of post-surgical lymphedema following lymphadenectomy. Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12:R70.
149. Gardenier JC, Kataru RP, Hespe GE, et al. Topical tacrolimus for the treatment of secondary lymphedema. Nat Commun. 2017;8:14345.
150. Tian W, Rockson SG, Jiang X, et al. Leukotriene B 4 antagonism ameliorates experimental lymphedema. Sci Transl Med 2017;9: eaal3920.
151. Nakamura K, Radhakrishnan K, Wong YM, Rockson SG. Anti-inflammatory pharmacotherapy with ketoprofen ameliorates experimental lymphatic vascular insufficiency in mice. PLoS One 2009;4:e8380.
152. Rockson SG, Tian W, Jiang X, et al. Pilot studies demonstrate the potential benefits of antiinflammatory therapy in human lymphedema. JCI Insight 2018;3:123775.

Supplemental Digital Content

Back to Top | Article Outline
Copyright © 2019 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons