Gastroepiploic Lymph Node Flap Harvest for Patients With Lymphedema: Minimally Invasive Versus Open Approach.
Journal
Annals of plastic surgery
ISSN: 1536-3708
Titre abrégé: Ann Plast Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7805336
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2020
07 2020
Historique:
entrez:
13
6
2020
pubmed:
13
6
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Vascularized gastroepiploic lymph node flaps have become a popular option to treat patients with extremity lymphedema. Overall, 2 surgical approaches to harvest this flap have been described: laparoscopic and open. In this study, we analyzed complications, harvesting time, and patient satisfaction scores, comparing these 2 techniques. Between 2012- and 2018, all patients with extremity lymphedema and candidates for the gastroepiploic flap harvest were included. Two groups were compared: open and laparoscopic approaches. Flap harvest time, postoperative pain, complications, return of gastrointestinal motility, time to discharge, and patient satisfaction scores were assessed. A total of 177 patients were included, of which 126 underwent laparoscopic harvest and 51 patients underwent open approach. Only 2 patients in the laparoscopic group had prior abdominal surgery not related to cancer treatment compared with 7 patients in the open approach (P < 0.01). Average surgical completion time for the laparoscopic versus open approach was 136 and 102 minutes, respectively (P < 0.02). Postoperative complications for the laparoscopic versus open were as follows: 1 patient developed pancreatitis and 2 developed ileus in the laparoscopic approach, whereas 3 patients developed ileus, 1 developed small bowel obstruction, 2 developed superficial site infection, and 1 developed minor wound dehiscence in the open approach. No patient required further surgical intervention. Average return of gastrointestinal function was 1 day (laparoscopic) and 2 days (open), respectively. On a pain scale, pain scores at postoperative day 1 and upon discharge were on average 3 versus 7 and 2 versus 5, respectively (P < 0.05). Lengths of hospital stay were on average 2 days in the laparoscopic group and 5 days in the open group (P < 0.001). Patient satisfaction scores based on pain and scars were significantly better in the laparoscopic group versus open group (P < 0.03). These data support that a minimal invasive approach is ideal and efficient when resources are available. In addition, the lower complication rate and high patient satisfaction scores give promising feedback to continue offering this technique.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Vascularized gastroepiploic lymph node flaps have become a popular option to treat patients with extremity lymphedema. Overall, 2 surgical approaches to harvest this flap have been described: laparoscopic and open. In this study, we analyzed complications, harvesting time, and patient satisfaction scores, comparing these 2 techniques.
METHODS
Between 2012- and 2018, all patients with extremity lymphedema and candidates for the gastroepiploic flap harvest were included. Two groups were compared: open and laparoscopic approaches. Flap harvest time, postoperative pain, complications, return of gastrointestinal motility, time to discharge, and patient satisfaction scores were assessed.
RESULTS
A total of 177 patients were included, of which 126 underwent laparoscopic harvest and 51 patients underwent open approach. Only 2 patients in the laparoscopic group had prior abdominal surgery not related to cancer treatment compared with 7 patients in the open approach (P < 0.01). Average surgical completion time for the laparoscopic versus open approach was 136 and 102 minutes, respectively (P < 0.02). Postoperative complications for the laparoscopic versus open were as follows: 1 patient developed pancreatitis and 2 developed ileus in the laparoscopic approach, whereas 3 patients developed ileus, 1 developed small bowel obstruction, 2 developed superficial site infection, and 1 developed minor wound dehiscence in the open approach. No patient required further surgical intervention. Average return of gastrointestinal function was 1 day (laparoscopic) and 2 days (open), respectively. On a pain scale, pain scores at postoperative day 1 and upon discharge were on average 3 versus 7 and 2 versus 5, respectively (P < 0.05). Lengths of hospital stay were on average 2 days in the laparoscopic group and 5 days in the open group (P < 0.001). Patient satisfaction scores based on pain and scars were significantly better in the laparoscopic group versus open group (P < 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS
These data support that a minimal invasive approach is ideal and efficient when resources are available. In addition, the lower complication rate and high patient satisfaction scores give promising feedback to continue offering this technique.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32530851
doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000002460
pii: 00000637-202007001-00020
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
S87-S91Références
Morrell RM, Halyard MY, Schild SE, et al. Breast cancer–related lymphedema. Mayo Clin Proc. 2005;80:1480–1484.
Grada AA, Phillips TJ. Lymphedema: pathophysiology and clinical manifestations. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77:1009–1020.
Warren AG, Brorson H, Borud LJ, et al. Lymphedema: a comprehensive review. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;59:464–472.
Hayes SC, Janda M, Cornish B, et al. Lymphedema after breast cancer: incidence, risk factors, and effect on upper body function. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3536–3542.
Becker C. Autologous lymph node transfers. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2016;32:28–33.
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.
Schulze H, Nacke M, Gutenbrunner C, et al. Worldwide assessment of healthcare personnel dealing with lymphoedema. Health Econ Rev. 2018;8:10.
Shih YC, Xu Y, Cormier JN, et al. Incidence, treatment costs, and complications of lymphedema after breast cancer among women of working age: a 2-year follow-up study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2007–2014.
Scaglioni MF, Fontein DBY, Arvanitakis M, et al. Systematic review of lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA) for the treatment of lymphedema. Microsurgery. 2017;37:947–953.
Chen WF, Bowen M, McNurlen M, et al. Vascularized lymph vessel transfer with supermicrosurgical ultra-thin superficial circumflex iliac artery flap for treatment of advanced lymphedema not treatable with supermicrosurgical lymphaticovenular anastomosis. Ann Plast Surg. 2018;78:S122.
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.
Carl HM, Walia G, Bello R, et al. Systematic review of the surgical treatment of extremity lymphedema. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2017;33:412–425.
Ciudad P, Manrique OJ, Bustos SS, et al. Comparisons in long-term clinical outcomes among patients with upper or lower extremity lymphedema treated with diverse vascularized lymph node transfer. Microsurgery. 2019;40:130–136.
Ho OA, Chu SY, Huang YL, et al. Effectiveness of vascularized lymph node transfer for extremity lymphedema using volumetric and circumferential differences. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7:1–7.
Brorson H, Svensson H. Liposuction combined with controlled compression therapy reduces arm lymphedema more effectively than controlled compression therapy alone. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;102:1058–1067; discussion 1068.
Ozturk CN, Ozturk C, Glasgow M, et al. Free vascularized lymph node transfer for treatment of lymphedema: a systematic evidence based review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69:1234–1247.
Howell AC, Gould DJ, Mayfield C, et al. Anatomical basis of the gastroepiploic vascularized lymph node transfer: a radiographic evaluation using computed tomographic angiography. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142:1046–1052.
Garza R, Skoracki R, Hock K, et al. A comprehensive overview on the surgical management of secondary lymphedema of the upper and lower extremities related to prior oncologic therapies. BMC Cancer. 2017;17:e2003.
Kenworthy EO, Nelson JA, Verma R, et al. Double vascularized omentum lymphatic transplant (VOLT) for the treatment of lymphedema. J Surg Oncol. 2018;117:1413–1419.
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.
Nguyen AT, Suami H. Laparoscopic free omental lymphatic flap for the treatment of lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136:114–118.
Goldsmith HS, De los Santos R, Beattie EJ Jr. Relief of chronic lymphedema by omental transposition. Ann Surg. 1967;166:573–585.
Morison R, Remarks ON. Some functions of the omentum. Br Med J. 1906;1:76–78.
Nguyen AT, Suami H, Hanasono MM, et al. Long-term outcomes of the minimally invasive free vascularized omental lymphatic flap for the treatment of lymphedema. J Surg Oncol. 2017;115:84–89.
Chu Y-Y, Allen RJJ, Wu T-J, et al. Greater Omental lymph node flap for upper limb lymphedema with lymph nodes–depleted patient. Plast Reconstr surgery Glob open. 2017;5:e1288.
Ciudad P, Manrique OJ, Date S, et al. A head-to-head comparison among donor site morbidity after vascularized lymph node transfer: pearls and pitfalls of a 6-year single center experience. J Surg Oncol. 2016;115:37–42.
Schaverien MV, Badash I, Patel KM, et al. Vascularized lymph node transfer for lymphedema. Semin Plast Surg. 2018;32:28–35.
O'Brien BM, Hickey MJ, Hurley JV, et al. Microsurgical transfer of the greater omentum in the treatment of canine obstructive lymphoedema. Br J Plast Surg. 1990;43:440–446.
Lasso JM, Pinilla C, Castellano M. New refinements in greater omentum free flap transfer for severe secondary lymphedema surgical treatment. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015;3:1–4.
Keus F, Gooszen HG, van Laarhoven CJ. Open, small-incision, or laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. An overview of Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;1:–CD008318.