Antonio J Forte1, Daniel Boczar1, Maria T Huayllani1, Francisco R Avila1, Gunel Guliyeva1, Xiaona Lu2, William R Mash3, Theodore A Kung4. 1. Division of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. 2. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 4. Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, magnetic resonance imaging lymphangiography (MRL) has emerged as a way to predict if patients are candidates for lymphedema surgery, particularly lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA). Our goal was to conduct a systematic review of the literature on the use of MRL for preoperative planning in lymphedema surgery. We hypothesized that MRL could add valuable information to the standard preoperative evaluation of lymphedema patients. METHODS: On February 17, 2020, we conducted a systematic review of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Clinical Answers, and Embase databases, without time frame or language limitations, to identify articles on the use of MRL for preoperative planning of lymphedema surgery. We excluded studies that investigated other applications of magnetic resonance imaging, such as lymphedema diagnosis and treatment evaluation. The primary outcome was the examination capacity to identify lymphatic anatomy and the secondary outcome was the presence of adverse effects. RESULTS: Of 372 potential articles identified with the search, nine studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. A total of 334 lymphedema patients were enrolled in these studies. Two studies compared MRL findings with those of other standard examinations (indocyanine green lymphography [ICG-L] or lymphoscintigraphy). No adverse effects due to MRL were reported. A study shown that MRL had higher sensitivity to detect lymphatic vessel abnormalities compared with lymphoscintigraphy and a statistically higher chance of successful LVA was observed when the results of MRL agreed with those of ICG-L (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: MRL could be useful for preoperative planning in lymphedema surgery. The scientific evidence has been limited, so further studies with greater numbers of patients and cost analysis are necessary to justify the addition of MRL to current preoperative protocols.
BACKGROUND: In recent years, magnetic resonance imaging lymphangiography (MRL) has emerged as a way to predict if patients are candidates for lymphedema surgery, particularly lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA). Our goal was to conduct a systematic review of the literature on the use of MRL for preoperative planning in lymphedema surgery. We hypothesized that MRL could add valuable information to the standard preoperative evaluation of lymphedemapatients. METHODS: On February 17, 2020, we conducted a systematic review of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Clinical Answers, and Embase databases, without time frame or language limitations, to identify articles on the use of MRL for preoperative planning of lymphedema surgery. We excluded studies that investigated other applications of magnetic resonance imaging, such as lymphedema diagnosis and treatment evaluation. The primary outcome was the examination capacity to identify lymphatic anatomy and the secondary outcome was the presence of adverse effects. RESULTS: Of 372 potential articles identified with the search, nine studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. A total of 334 lymphedemapatients were enrolled in these studies. Two studies compared MRL findings with those of other standard examinations (indocyanine green lymphography [ICG-L] or lymphoscintigraphy). No adverse effects due to MRL were reported. A study shown that MRL had higher sensitivity to detect lymphatic vessel abnormalities compared with lymphoscintigraphy and a statistically higher chance of successful LVA was observed when the results of MRL agreed with those of ICG-L (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: MRL could be useful for preoperative planning in lymphedema surgery. The scientific evidence has been limited, so further studies with greater numbers of patients and cost analysis are necessary to justify the addition of MRL to current preoperative protocols.