RESUMO
Lymphedema refers to the accumulation of protein-rich fluid in the interstitial spaces. This can occur secondary to congenital malformation of the lymphatic channels or nodes or as a result of an insult that damages appropriately formed channels and nodes. Stagnant, protein-rich lymph initiates an inflammatory response that leads to adipocyte proliferation, fibrous tissue deposition, and increased susceptibility to infections. The end result is permanent disfigurement and dermal changes. Early and accurate diagnosis is essential, since lymphedema is a chronic and progressive problem. When lymphedema affects the lower extremity, it is important to manage it in a way that preserves function and mobility. Early diagnosis also allows for a proactive rather than reactive approach to treatment and utilization of novel physiologic procedures, such as lymphovenous anastomosis and vascularized lymph node transfer. Such interventions slow down disease progression and reduce morbidity by allowing the surgeon to salvage the remaining functional lymphatic channels. When physiologic procedures fail or when faced with a delayed presentation, the addition of excisional procedures can provide a more comprehensive treatment of this debilitating disease. The aim of this article is to review the most current concepts in the surgical management of lower extremity lymphedema.
Assuntos
Procedimentos Cirúrgicos de Citorredução/métodos , Extremidade Inferior/cirurgia , Vasos Linfáticos/cirurgia , Linfedema/cirurgia , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Vasculares/métodos , Veias/cirurgia , Adulto , Anastomose Cirúrgica , Humanos , Extremidade Inferior/irrigação sanguínea , Vasos Linfáticos/diagnóstico por imagem , Linfedema/etiologia , Masculino , Microcirurgia/métodos , Retalho Perfurante/irrigação sanguínea , Retalho Perfurante/cirurgia , Ultrassonografia Doppler , Neoplasias Urológicas/cirurgia , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Urológicos/efeitos adversosRESUMO
Background: Previous reports have evidenced the disruptive effect of the COVID-19 in microsurgical and reconstructive departments. We report our experience with cross-leg free flaps and (CLFF) and cross-leg vascular cable bridge flaps (CLVCBF) for lower limb salvage, technical consideration to decrease morbidity, and some structural modifications to our protocols for standard of care adapted to the COVID-19. Methods: We retrospectively included consecutive patients undergoing reconstruction with CLFFs and CLVCBFs for lower limb salvage from January 2003 to May 2022. We extracted data on baseline demographic characteristics, mechanism of trauma, and surgical outcomes. Results: Twenty-four patients were included, 11 (45.8%) underwent reconstruction with CLFF while 13 had CLVCBFs (54.2%). Fifteen patients (62.5%) underwent lower limb reconstruction under general anesthesia while 9 (37.5%) had combined spinal-epidural anesthesia. During COVID-19 pandemic, six CLFF cases were performed under S-E (25%). The average time for pedicle transection of muscle CLFFs and muscle CLVCBFs was comparable between groups (60 days versus 62 days, p = 0.864). A significantly shorter average time was evidenced for pedicle division of fasciocutaneous flaps in the CLFF group when compared to CLVCBFs (45 days versus 59 days, p = 0.002). Conclusions: In selected patients, CLFFs and CLVCBFs offer an optimal alternative for lower limb salvage using recipient vessels out of the zone of injury from the contralateral limb. Modification in the surgical protocols can decrease improve resource allocation in the setting of severely ill patients during COVID-19.Level of evidence: Level III, Therapeutic.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The combination of microvascular breast reconstruction (MBR) and vascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT) in a single-stage procedure is a surgical option for women who desire breast reconstruction and postmastectomy lymphedema surgery. In this study, we present a series of patients who underwent simultaneous lymphatic and MBR with the gastroepiploic VLNT (GE-VLNT) and the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap respectively. METHODS: Between 2018 and 2019, all consecutive patients diagnosed with lymphedema stage IIb-III International Society of Lymphology who opted to pursue simultaneous MBR with DIEP flap and GE-VLNT were included in this study. Patient demographics, comorbidities, prior radiation therapy, operative characteristics, surgical outcomes and complications were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Six patients underwent simultaneous unilateral MBR with DIEP flap and GE-VLNT. The mean age was 48±10.5 years and mean body mass index was 28.2±4.5 kg/m2. The flap survival rate was 100%. One patient required re-exploration due to venous congestion of the lymph node flap but was successfully salvaged. There was no donor site morbidity at the donor or recipient site for the DIEP flap were seen. The mean circumference reduction rate was 30.0%±5.1% (P<0.001). One patient stage III underwent additional liposuction at 12 months postoperative to improve final results. CONCLUSIONS: The combined use of DIEP flap and GE-VLNT flaps in a single-stage procedure is a safe and reliable surgical option for patients with postmastectomy lymphedema who desire and are suitable for autologous microvascular breast and lymphatic reconstruction.