J Reconstr Microsurg 2013; 29(02): 099-106
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1329919
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Microsurgical Techniques for the Treatment of Breast Cancer—related Lymphedema: a Systematic Review

Tiara R. Lopez Penha
1   Department of General Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
2   Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Hand Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
,
Charlotte IJsbrandy
2   Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Hand Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
,
Nicole A. M. Hendrix
2   Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Hand Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
,
Esther M. Heuts
1   Department of General Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
,
Adri C. Voogd
3   Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
,
Maarten F. von Meyenfeldt
1   Department of General Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
,
Rene R. W. J. van der Hulst
2   Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Hand Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

29. Mai 2012

24. August 2012

Publikationsdatum:
19. Dezember 2012 (online)

Zoom Image

Abstract

Background Upper limb lymphedema is one of the most underestimated and debilitating complications of breast cancer treatment. The aim of this review is to summarize the recent literature for evidence of the effectiveness of lymphatic microsurgery for the treatment of breast cancer–related lymphedema (BCRL).

Methods A search was conducted for articles published from January 2000 until January 2012. Only studies on secondary lymphedema after breast cancer treatment and those examining the effectiveness of microsurgery were included.

Results No randomized clinical trials or comparative studies were available. Ten case-series met inclusion criteria: (composite) tissue transfer (n = 4), lymphatic vessel transfer (n = 2), and derivative microlymphatic surgery (n = 4). Limb volume/circumference reduction varied from 2 to 50% over a follow-up time ranging from 1 to 132 months. Postoperative discontinuation rates of conservative therapy were only reported after composite tissue transfer, ranging from 33 to 100% after 3 to 24 months. Clear selection criteria for lymphatic surgery and lymphatic flow assessment were absent in most studies.

Conclusion We identified important methodological shortcomings of the available literature. Evidence acquired through comparative studies with uniform patient selection is lacking. Consistent positive findings with regards to limb volume reduction and limited complications are reasons to further explore these techniques in methodologically superior studies.

Crossref Cited-by logo
Zitierungen