Takumi Yamamoto1, Nana Yamamoto2, Takashi Kageyama3, Hayahito Sakai3, Yuma Fuse3, Reiko Tsukuura3. 1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Center Hospital of National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo, Japan; Department of Plastic Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Bokutoh Hospital, Tokyo, Japan; Department of Plastic Surgery, Noda Hospital, Chiba, Japan. Electronic address: tyamamoto-tky@umin.ac.jp. 2. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Center Hospital of National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo, Japan; Department of Plastic Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Bokutoh Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. 3. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Center Hospital of National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lymphatic system is important to maintain homeostasis. Lymph-axiality concept has been reported, which suggests possibility of lymphatic reconstruction using flap transfer without lymph node or supermicrosurgical lymphatic anastomosis. METHODS: Medical charts of 122 free flap reconstruction cases, either with conventional flap transfer (control) or lymph-interpositional-flap transfer (LIFT), for extremity soft tissue defects including lymphatic pathways were reviewed. Lymph vessels' stumps in a flap were placed as close to those in a recipient site as possible under indocyanine green (ICG) lymphography navigation in LIFT group. LIFT group was subdivided into LIFT(+) and LIFT(-) groups; lymph vessels' stumps could be approximated within 2 cm in LIFT(+) group, whereas those could not be in LIFT(-) group. Lymph flow restoration (LFR) and lymphedema development (LED) rates were compared between the groups on postoperative 6 months. RESULTS: No flap included lymph node. LFR was observed in 50 cases and LED in 72 cases. LFR rate in LIFT group (n = 75) was significantly higher than that in control group (n = 47) (57.3% vs. 14.9%; P < 0.001). LED rate in LIFT group was significantly lower than that in control group (20.0% vs. 48.9%; P < 0.001). Sub-group analysis showed significantly higher LFR and lower LED rates in LIFT(+) group (n = 44) than those in LIFT(-) group (n = 31; 88.6% vs. 12.9%; P < 0.001, 4.5% vs. 41.9%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: LIFT allows simultaneous soft tissue and lymphatic reconstruction without lymph node transfer or lymphatic anastomosis, which prevents development of secondary lymphedema.
BACKGROUND: Lymphatic system is important to maintain homeostasis. Lymph-axiality concept has been reported, which suggests possibility of lymphatic reconstruction using flap transfer without lymph node or supermicrosurgical lymphatic anastomosis. METHODS: Medical charts of 122 free flap reconstruction cases, either with conventional flap transfer (control) or lymph-interpositional-flap transfer (LIFT), for extremity soft tissue defects including lymphatic pathways were reviewed. Lymph vessels' stumps in a flap were placed as close to those in a recipient site as possible under indocyanine green (ICG) lymphography navigation in LIFT group. LIFT group was subdivided into LIFT(+) and LIFT(-) groups; lymph vessels' stumps could be approximated within 2 cm in LIFT(+) group, whereas those could not be in LIFT(-) group. Lymph flow restoration (LFR) and lymphedema development (LED) rates were compared between the groups on postoperative 6 months. RESULTS: No flap included lymph node. LFR was observed in 50 cases and LED in 72 cases. LFR rate in LIFT group (n = 75) was significantly higher than that in control group (n = 47) (57.3% vs. 14.9%; P < 0.001). LED rate in LIFT group was significantly lower than that in control group (20.0% vs. 48.9%; P < 0.001). Sub-group analysis showed significantly higher LFR and lower LED rates in LIFT(+) group (n = 44) than those in LIFT(-) group (n = 31; 88.6% vs. 12.9%; P < 0.001, 4.5% vs. 41.9%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: LIFT allows simultaneous soft tissue and lymphatic reconstruction without lymph node transfer or lymphatic anastomosis, which prevents development of secondary lymphedema.