Determining factors in relation to lymphovascular characteristics and anastomotic configuration in supermicrosurgical lymphaticovenous anastomosis - A retrospective cohort study.

Autor: Tsai PL; Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan., Wu SC; Department of Anesthesiology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan., Lin WC; Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan., Mito D; Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, And Aesthetic Surgery University of Tokyo Hospital Tokyo, Japan., Chiang MH; Department of Anesthesiology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan., Hsieh CH; Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan., Yang JC; Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Xiamen Changgung Hospital, Xiamen, Fujian, China. Electronic address: prs.lymph@gmail.com.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: International journal of surgery (London, England) [Int J Surg] 2020 Sep; Vol. 81, pp. 39-46. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Jul 30.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.07.011
Abstrakt: Introduction: Supermicrosurgical lymphaticovenous anastomosis (LVA) can be performed in different configuration such as end-to-end (LVEEA), end-to-side (LVESA), and side-to-end (LVSEA). Each configuration has its own advantages and disadvantages. However, it has remained ambiguous as to which anastomotic o configuration to choose. The aim of this study is to analyze and compare the relative sizes of lymphatic vessel (LV) and recipient vein (RV), in attempts to provide the basis for proper selections of the anastomotic configuration.
Methods: From March 2016 to October 2018, 100 lymphedema patients with 103 lymphedematous lower limbs (stage I-III) were included. All patients underwent supermicrosurgical LVA. Demographic data and intraoperative findings, including the number and size of the LV/RV, the size discrepancies, and the numbers of LVA performed were recorded. The severity of LVs were classified based on the lymphosclerosis classification (s0, s1, s2, and s3). One-way ANOVA test and post hoc analysis with Bonferroni's correction were performed for size discrepancy analysis.
Results: A total 730 LVA were performed with 621 LVs and 468 RVs, averaging 7.1 LVA per limb. Of these, 367 (50.3%) were LVEEA, 333 (45.6%) were LVESA, and 30 (4.1%) were LVSEA. The average LV and RV size was 0.61 ± 0.35 mm and 0.87 ± 0.43 mm, respectively (p < 0.001). The average LV size in different configuration: LVEEA = LVESA < LVSEA (p < 0.001); The average RV size: LVEEA = LVSEA < LVESA (p < 0.001); The size discrepancy: LVESA > LVSEA > LVEEA (p < 0.001).The LVSEA group has more s1 lymphatic vessels as opposed to LVEEA and LVESA (p = 0.004).
Conclusion: The size and the comparative discrepancy between the LVs and RVs are the determining factors for proper anastomotic configuration selection during LVA. LVESA was more frequently performed when vessel size discrepancy was larger. The efficacy of each anastomotic configuration has yet to be determined.
(Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: