Lymphatic Microsurgical Preventive Healing Approach for the Primary Prevention of Lymphedema: A 4-Year Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) remains the leading cause of lymphedema nationally, and there is still no cure for the disease. The lymphatic microsurgical preventive healing approach (LYMPHA) is a promising option for lymphedema prophylaxis in patients undergoing ALND, but long-term outcomes of the LYMPHA are not well established. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective review of patients undergoing ALND at their center from November of 2012 to November of 2016 and assembled two cohorts, those who received the LYMPHA and those who did not (non-LYMPHA). Patient data were collected to evaluate lymphedema risk and long-term lymphedema incidence of each group. RESULTS: Forty-five women were included in both our LYMPHA and non-LYMPHA cohorts. Mean body mass index (27.7 kg/m2 versus 29.9 kg/m2; P = 0.15) and radiation therapy rates (60.0% versus 68.9%; P = 0.51) did not differ between groups. Non-LYMPHA patients underwent complete mastectomy more frequently than LYMPHA patients (97.8% versus 77.8%; P = 0.007), but had a similar number of nodes removed during ALND (14.4 versus 15.8; P = 0.32). Median follow-up time was greater than 4 years for both LYMPHA and non-LYMPHA groups (57.0 months versus 63.0 months; P = 0.07). Overall, lymphedema incidence was 31.1% in the LYMPHA group and 33.3% in the non-LYMPHA group (P > 0.99). No significant differences in lymphedema incidences were observed between the LYMPHA and non-LYMPHA groups for patients with obesity, patients who received radiation therapy, or patients with obesity who also received radiation therapy (P > 0.05 for all subgroups). CONCLUSIONS: The LYMPHA may not prevent lymphedema long-term in patients who undergo ALND. More long-term studies are needed to determine the true potential of the procedure. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Comparing Outcomes after Oncoplastic Breast Reduction and Breast Reduction for Benign Macromastia.

BACKGROUND: Oncoplastic breast reconstruction improves cosmetic outcomes when compared to standard breast conservation therapy alone. The authors studied whether tailoring a breast reduction to a cancer resection affects complication rates by comparing (1) outcomes between oncoplastic and benign macromastia patients and (2) complication rates between the cancer side and the symmetrizing side of an oncoplastic reduction. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on female patients who underwent either oncoplastic or benign breast reduction over 9 years by a single surgeon. Patient demographics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were gathered from the electronic medical record. Chi-square and t tests were performed when appropriate to determine significance. RESULTS: Of the 211 patients included in the study, 62 (29.4 percent) underwent oncoplastic breast reduction and 149 (70.6 percent) underwent breast reduction for benign macromastia. Total resection weight was greater in the benign group (p = 0.00). There was a higher rate of loss of nipple sensation in the oncoplastic group (p = 0.005) but no differences in any other complication. There was a higher complication rate in the oncologic breast when compared to the symmetrizing breast within the oncoplastic cohort (p = 0.039), but no differences in the rates of individual complications. CONCLUSIONS: Although the loss of nipple sensation was increased in patients undergoing oncoplastic breast reduction, all other outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups. The authors' findings indicate that oncoplastic breast reduction can be performed with a safety profile similar to that of a standard breast reduction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.