Jennifer L Pasko1, Jennifer Garreau1, Amy Carl1, Mindy Ansteth1, Margaret Glissmeyer1, Nathalie Johnson2. 1. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of General Surgery, Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital, Portland, OR, USA. 2. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of General Surgery, Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital, Portland, OR, USA. Electronic address: nemtipi@aol.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lymphedema is a feared complication of many patients following axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer. Axillary reverse lymphatic mapping (ARM) was adopted to decrease the incidence of lymphedema. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on 139 patients with breast cancer who had greater than 10 lymph nodes removed. A survey was sent to patients to identify those with lymphedema. RESULTS: One hundred nine women were contacted via mail survey to determine the presence of lymphedema. Of the 46 surveys returned, the incidence of lymphedema was 39%. Twenty-seven percent of the ARM group identified themselves as having lymphedema compared with 50% in non-ARM group. Eighteen percent of women in the ARM group needed an arm sleeve for treatment compared with 45.8% in the non-ARM group. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of perceived lymphedema and the need for arm compression sleeve devices were lower in the ARM cohort. ARM should be adopted to decrease patient perception of lymphedema.
BACKGROUND:Lymphedema is a feared complication of many patients following axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer. Axillary reverse lymphatic mapping (ARM) was adopted to decrease the incidence of lymphedema. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on 139 patients with breast cancer who had greater than 10 lymph nodes removed. A survey was sent to patients to identify those with lymphedema. RESULTS: One hundred nine women were contacted via mail survey to determine the presence of lymphedema. Of the 46 surveys returned, the incidence of lymphedema was 39%. Twenty-seven percent of the ARM group identified themselves as having lymphedema compared with 50% in non-ARM group. Eighteen percent of women in the ARM group needed an arm sleeve for treatment compared with 45.8% in the non-ARM group. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of perceived lymphedema and the need for arm compression sleeve devices were lower in the ARM cohort. ARM should be adopted to decrease patient perception of lymphedema.