J 2024

Comparison of contraction-type and noncontraction-type lymphatic vessels in lymphaticovenous anastomosis for cancer-related unilateral lower limb lymphedema: a retrospective cohort propensity-score-matched outcome analysis

KNOZ, Martin, Yu-Ming WANG, Sheng-Dean LUO, Shao-Chun WU, Wei-Che LIN et. al.

Základní údaje

Originální název

Comparison of contraction-type and noncontraction-type lymphatic vessels in lymphaticovenous anastomosis for cancer-related unilateral lower limb lymphedema: a retrospective cohort propensity-score-matched outcome analysis

Autoři

KNOZ, Martin (203 Česká republika, domácí), Yu-Ming WANG, Sheng-Dean LUO, Shao-Chun WU, Wei-Che LIN, Pei-Yu TSAI, Peng-Chen CHIEN, Ching-Hua HSIEH a Johnson Chia-Shen YANG

Vydání

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY, PHILADELPHIA, LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS, 2024, 1743-9191

Další údaje

Jazyk

angličtina

Typ výsledku

Článek v odborném periodiku

Obor

30212 Surgery

Stát vydavatele

Spojené státy

Utajení

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

Odkazy

Impakt faktor

Impact factor: 15.300 v roce 2022

Organizační jednotka

Lékařská fakulta

UT WoS

001203304700013

Klíčová slova anglicky

contraction-type; lymphatic vessels; lymphaticovenous anastomosis; lymphedema; NECST classification; noncontraction type; supermicrosurgery

Štítky

Příznaky

Mezinárodní význam, Recenzováno
Změněno: 20. 8. 2024 13:25, Mgr. Tereza Miškechová

Anotace

V originále

Background:Contraction-type lymphatic vessels (LV) are considered suboptimal for lymphaticovenous anastomosis (LVA). However, despite these pathological changes, their functionality and link to outcomes have not been fully elucidated. The aim of this study was to determine the impact on outcomes when contraction-type LVs were used for LVA compared to the noncontraction-type (normal + ectatic) counterpart for treating lower limb lymphedema. Study design:Eighty-three patients with gynecologic cancer-related unilateral lower-limb lymphedema who underwent LVA as their primary treatment were enrolled in this study. The study group included 20 patients who used only contraction-type LVs. An additional 63 patients (control group) received noncontraction-type LVs only. Patients with a history of LVA, liposuction, or excisional therapy were excluded. Patient characteristics, intraoperative findings, functional parameters, and pre-LVA and post-LVA volume changes were recorded and matched using propensity scores. The primary endpoint was the volume change at 6/12 months after LVA. Results:After matching, 20 patients were included in each group. All parameters were matched, except that the study group still had a significantly inferior indocyanine green (ICG)-positive ratio, lymph flow-positive ratio, and washout-positive ratios (P<0.001, P=0.003, and P<0.001, respectively) when compared to the control group after matching. However, at 1-year follow-up, the postoperative percentage volume reduction was comparable between the groups (P=0.619). Conclusion:The use of contraction-type LVs for LVA is encouraged when no other LVs are available.