These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Quantitative evaluation and qualitative results of surgical lymphovenous anastomosis in lower limb lymphedema].
    Author: Vignes S, Boursier V, Priollet P, Miserey G, Trévidic P.
    Journal: J Mal Vasc; 2003 Feb; 28(1):30-5. PubMed ID: 12616224.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: Treatment of lymphedema (LE) includes complex decongestive physiotherapy (manual lymphatic drainage, bandaging, exercises, skin care, elastic stockings). Surgical therapy is rarely useful. However, lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA) is the most used surgery in LE. We have assessed LVA in lower limb LE. METHODS: Thirteen patients (5 women, 8 men) with primary (n=10) or secondary LE (n=3) were included. Primary LE started at a mean âge (+/- SD) of 28.9 +/- 14.5 years. LE was located in left lower limb (n=7), right (n=4) or both (n=2). LVA was performed 7.1 +/- 4.9 years after the onset of LE by the same surgeon. Two to five lymphatic vessels were used for LVA. Assessment of LVA was based upon objective criteria (volumetry, erysipelas) and subjective criteria (global discomfort, heaviness, cutaneous tenderness, difficulties for doing significant effort or walking more than 1 km). Global assessement of LVA was collected for each patient. RESULTS: Before LVA, excess of volume (+/- SD) of LE was 1906 +/- 1277 ml or 28.5 +/- 18% in comparison with the controlateral limb. After LVA, excess of volume (+/- SD) remained stable with 1863 +/- 1468 ml or 24.4 +/- 18.9%. Volumetry was appreciated with a mean (+/- SD) follow-up of 52 +/- 3 months. Frequency of erysipelas was unchanged for the 6 patients with recurrent episodes. Only heaviness and cutaneous tenderness were significantly reduced after LVA. But global discomfort (+/- SD) decreased from 6.7 +/- 2.7 to 5 +/- 3.2 on visual analogic scale (NS). No differences were observed for significant effort or walking more than 1 km. Global assessment of LVA by the patient was very good (n=3), good (n=2), intermediate (n=5) and bad (n=3). CONCLUSION: LVA failed to improve the volume of lower limb LE and reduce the frequency of erysipelas. LVA improves few subjectives criteria but not global discomfort. Further studies are needed to evaluate LVA and to select patients to obtain best results.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]