Vascularized Jejunal Mesenteric Lymph Node Transfer: A Novel Surgical Treatment for Extremity Lymphedema

Advances in Microsurgical Treatment Options to Optimize Autologous Free Flap Breast Reconstruction

Introduction: Reconstructive plastic surgeons have made great strides in the field of breast reconstruction to achieve the best results for patients undergoing treatment for breast cancer. As microsurgical techniques have evolved, these patients can benefit from additional treatment modalities to optimize the results of the reconstruction. Free tissue transfer from alternative donor sites for breast reconstruction is routinely performed, which was not possible in the past. Neurotization is now possible to address the numbness and lack of sensation to the reconstructed breast. For those patients who develop lymphedema of the upper extremity as a result of their breast cancer care, supermicrosurgical options are now available to treat and even to prevent the development of lymphedema. This study presents a narrative review regarding the latest microsurgical advancements in autologous free flap breast reconstruction. Methods: A literature review was performed on PubMed with the key words "autologous free flap breast reconstruction", "deep inferior epigastric perforator flap", "transverse upper gracilis flap", "profunda artery perforator flap", "superior gluteal artery perforator flap", "inferior gluteal artery perforator flap", "lumbar artery perforator flap", "breast neurotization", "lymphovenous bypass and anastomosis", and "vascularized lymph node transfer". Articles that specifically focused on free flap breast reconstruction, breast neurotization, and lymphedema surgery in the setting of breast cancer were evaluated and included in this literature review. Results: The literature search yielded a total of 4948 articles which were screened. After the initial screening, 413 articles were reviewed to assess the relevance and applicability to the current study. Conclusions: Breast reconstruction has evolved tremendously in recent years to provide the most natural and cosmetically pleasing results for those patients undergoing treatment for breast cancer. As technology and surgical techniques have progressed, breast cancer patients now have many more options, particularly if they are interested in autologous reconstruction. These advancements also provide the possibility of restoring sensibility to the reconstructed breast as well as treating the sequela of lymphedema due to their cancer treatment.

Advances in Modern Microsurgery

Background/Objectives: Microsurgery employs techniques requiring optical magnification and specialized instruments to operate on small anatomical structures, including small vessels. These methods are integral to plastic surgery, enabling procedures such as free tissue transfer, nerve reconstruction, replantation, and lymphatic surgery. This paper explores the historical development, advancements, and current applications of microsurgery in plastic surgery. Methods: The databases MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Web of Science were selectively searched with the term "(((microsurgery) OR (advances)) OR (robotic)) OR (AI)) AND (((lymphatic surgery) OR (peripheral nerve surgery)) OR (allotransplantation))" and manually checked for relevance. Additionally, a supplementary search among the references of all publications included was performed. Articles were included that were published in English or German up to June 2024. Results: Modern microsurgical techniques have revolutionized plastic surgery, enabling precise tissue transfers, improved nerve reconstruction, and effective lymphedema treatments. The evolution of robotic-assisted surgery, with systems like da Vinci and MUSA, has enhanced precision and reduced operative times. Innovations in imaging, such as magnetic resonance (MR) lymphography and near-infrared fluorescence, have significantly improved surgical planning and outcomes. Conclusions: The continuous advancements in microsurgery, including supermicrosurgical techniques and robotic assistance, have significantly enhanced the capabilities and outcomes of plastic surgery. Future developments in AI and robotics promise further improvements in precision and efficiency, while new imaging modalities and surgical techniques expand the scope and success of microsurgical interventions.

Personalizing Locoregional Therapy in Patients With Breast Cancer in 2024: Tailoring Axillary Surgery, Escalating Lymphatic Surgery, and Implementing Evidence-Based Hypofractionated Radiotherapy

The management of axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer is continually evolving. Recent data now support omitting axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in most patients with metastases in up to two sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) during upfront surgery and those with residual isolated tumor cells after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). In the upfront surgery setting, ALND is still indicated, however, in patients with clinically node-positive breast cancer or more than two positive SLNs and, after NACT, in case of residual micrometastases and macrometastases. Omission of the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) can be considered in many postmenopausal patients with small luminal breast cancer, particularly when axillary ultrasound is negative. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are currently aiming at eliminating the remaining indications for ALND and also establishing omission of SLNB in a broader patient population. The movement to deescalate axillary staging is in part because of the association between ALND and lymphedema, which is swelling of an extremity because of lymphatic damage and obstructed lymphatic drainage. To reduce the risk of developing this condition, patients undergoing ALND can undergo reverse mapping of the axilla and immediate reconstruction or bypass of the lymphatics from the involved extremity. Decongestion and compression are the foundation of conservative treatment for established lymphedema, while lymphovenous bypass and lymph node transfer are surgical procedures to address the physiologic dysfunction. Radiotherapy is an essential component of breast locoregional therapy: more than three decades of radiation research has optimized treatment according to patient's risk of local recurrence while substantially reducing the number of treatment visits. High-quality RCTs have shown the efficacy and safety of hypofractionation-more than 2Gy radiation dose per treatment (fraction)-significantly reducing the burden of radiotherapy treatment for many patients with breast cancer. In 2024, guidelines recommend no more than 15-16 fractions for whole-breast and nodal radiotherapy, with some recommending five fractions for whole-breast radiotherapy. In addition, simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) has been shown to be noninferior to sequential boost with regards to ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence with similar or reduced long-term side effects, also reducing overall treatment length. Further RCTs are underway investigating other indications for five fractions, including SIB and regional node irradiation, such that, in future, it may be possible for the majority of breast radiotherapy patients to be treated with a 1-week course. This manuscript serves to outline the latest updates on axillary surgical staging, lymphatic surgery, and evidence-based radiotherapy in the treatment of breast cancer.

Surgical management of lymphedema: prophylactic and therapeutic operations

Purpose of Review

Lymphedema is chronic limb swelling from lymphatic dysfunction and is currently incurable. Breast-cancer related lymphedema (BCRL) affects up to 5 million Americans and occurs in one-third of breast cancer survivors following axillary lymph node dissection. Compression remains the mainstay of therapy. Surgical management of BCRL includes excisional procedures to remove excess tissue and physiologic procedures to attempt improve fluid retention in the limb. The purpose of this review is to highlight surgical management strategies for preventing and treating breast cancer-related lymphedema.

Recent findings

Immediate lymphatic reconstruction (ILR) is a microsurgical technique that anastomoses disrupted axillary lymphatic vessels to nearby veins at the time of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and has been reported to reduce lymphedema rates from 30% to 4-12%.

Summary

Postsurgical lymphedema remains incurable. Surgical management of lymphedema includes excisional procedures and physiologic procedures using microsurgical technique. Immediate lymphatic reconstruction has emerged as a prophylactic strategy to prevent lymphedema in breast cancer patients.

Elephantiasis Nostras Verrucosa of the Lower Limb: A Case Report and Literature Review

Elephantiasis nostras verrucosa (ENV) is a rare complication of chronic lymphedema, leading to progressive cutaneous hypertrophy and disfigured lower extremities. We present an unusual case of a 79-year-old man with ENV, who had an episode of erysipelas treated and cured with antibiotics. The patient presented with progressive painless lymphedema of the lower limb years ago, complicated with skin changes. The biology and radiology test does not objective any causes. The compression therapy was proposed to the patient. ENV is characterized by lymphedema and skin anomaly. Management of ENV is often challenging, but a variety of successful medical and surgical treatment strategies have been reported.

Recent Advances in Therapeutic Modalities Against Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema: Future Epigenetic Landscape

Background: Lymphedema is a significant postsurgical complication observed in the majority of breast cancer patients. These multifactorial etiopathogenesis have a significant role in the development of novel diagnostic/prognostic biomarkers and the development of novel therapies. This review aims to ascertain the epigenetic alterations that lead to breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL), multiple pathobiological events, and the underlying genetic predisposing factors, signaling cascades pertinent to the lapses in effective prognosis/diagnosis, and finally to develop a suitable therapeutic regimen. Methods and Results: We have performed a literature search in public databases such as PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, National Library of Medicine and screened several published reports. Search words such as epigenetics to induce BCRL, prognosis/diagnosis, primary lymphedema, secondary lymphedema, genetic predisposing factors for BRCL, conventional therapies, and surgery were used in these databases. This review described several epigenetic-based predisposing factors and the pathophysiological consequences of BCRL, which affect the overall quality of life, and the interplay of these events could foster the progression of lymphedema in breast cancer survivors. Prognosis/diagnostic and therapy lapses for treating BCRL are highly challenging due to genetic and anatomical variations, alteration in the lymphatic vessel contractions, and variable expression of several factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-E and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) in breast cancer survivors. Conclusion: We compared the efficacy of various conventional therapies for treating BCRL as a multidisciplinary approach. Further substantial research is required to decipher underlying signaling epigenetic pathways to develop chromatin-modifying therapies pertinent to the multiple etiopathogenesis to explore the correlation between the disease pathophysiology and novel therapeutic modalities to treat BCRL.

Outcomes after microsurgical treatment of lymphedema: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Microsurgical treatment options for lymphedema consist mainly of lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA) and vascularized lymph node transfers (VLNTs). There are no standard measurements of the effectiveness of these interventions and reported outcomes vary among studies.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed based on a structured search in Embase, Medline, PubMed, Cinahl, Cochrane, and ProQuest in October 2020, with an update in February 2022. Firstly, a qualitative summary of the main reported outcomes was performed, followed by a pooled meta-analysis of the three most frequently reported outcomes using a random effects model. Randomized controlled trials, prospective cohorts, retrospective cohorts, and cross-sectional and case-control studies that documented outcomes following microsurgery in adult patients were included. Studies of other surgical treatments (liposuction, radical excision, lymphatic vessel transplantation) or without reported outcomes were excluded. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) (ID: CRD42020202417). No external funding was received for this review.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty studies, including 6496 patients, were included in the systematic review. The qualitative analysis highlighted the three most frequently reported outcomes: change in circumference, change in volume, and change in the number of infectious episodes per year. The overall pooled change in excess circumference across 29 studies, including 1002 patients, was -35.6% [95% CI: -30.8 to -40.3]. The overall pooled change in excess volume across 12 studies including 587 patients was -32.7% [95% CI: -19.8 to -45.6], and the overall pooled change in the number of cutaneous infections episodes per year across 8 studies including 248 patients was -1.9 [95% CI: -1.4 to -2.3]. The vast majority of the studies included were case series and cohorts, which were intrinsically exposed to a risk of selection bias.

CONCLUSION

The currently available evidence supports LVA and vascularized lymph node transfers as effective treatments to reduce the severity of secondary lymphedema. Standardization of staging method, outcomes measurements, and reporting is paramount in future research in order to allow comparability across studies and pooling of results.

Treatment of multiple limb lymphedema with combined supermicrosurgical techniques

INTRODUCTION

Lymphedema surgery including lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA) and vascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT) are effective treatments for lymphedema; however, treating multiple limbs in a single operation using both approaches has not been described. We hypothesize multiple limb lymphedema can be treated effectively in one operation.

PATIENT AND METHODS

Retrospective review of seven patients undergoing extreme lymphedema surgery (mean age: 53.2 years; range: 33-66 years) with an average BMI of 34.8 kg/m² (range: 17.6-53.6 kg/m² ). Two patients developed bilateral upper extremity (UE) lymphedema secondary to breast cancer treatment, three had bilateral lower extremity (LE) lymphedema, and two suffered from lymphedema of all four extremities due to breast cancer treatment.

RESULTS

One patient with bilateral UE lymphedema was treated with bilateral inguinal node transfers with LVA and the other with combined bilateral DIEP flaps and inguinal node transfers with LVA. Three patients had bilateral LE lymphedema: two were treated with split omental/gastroepiploic nodes, and one underwent simultaneous supraclavicular and submental node transfers. LVAs were performed in one leg in each patient. Two patients with four-limb lymphedema underwent bilateral inguinal node transfers with DIEP flaps and bilateral LE LVA. In total, there were eight UE and 10 LE treated. Average follow-up was 15.8 months (range: 12.6-28.4 months), all patients reported subjective improvement in symptoms, were able to decrease use of compression garments and pumps, and no patients developed cellulitis.

CONCLUSION

Patients suffering from lymphedema of multiple extremities can be treated safely and effectively combining both LVA and VLNT in a single operation.

Immediate Lymphatic Reconstruction to Prevent Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema: A Systematic Review

Significance: Lymphedema is chronic limb swelling from lymphatic dysfunction. The condition affects up to 250 million people worldwide. In breast cancer patients, lymphedema occurs in 30% who undergo axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). Recent Advances: Immediate lymphatic reconstruction (ILR), also termed Lymphatic Microsurgical Preventing Healing Approach (LyMPHA), is a method to decrease the risk of lymphedema by performing prophylactic lymphovenous anastomoses at the time of ALND. The objective of this study is to assess the risk reduction of ILR in preventing lymphedema. Critical Issues: Lymphedema has significant effects on the quality of life and morbidity of patients. Several techniques have been described to manage lymphedema after development, but prophylactic treatment of lymphedema with ILR may decrease risk of development to 6.6%. Future Directions: Long-term studies that demonstrate efficacy of ILR may allow for prophylactic management of lymphedema in the patient undergoing lymph node dissection.

Lessons Learnt from an 11-year Experience with Lymphatic Surgery and a Systematic Review of Reported Complications: Technical Considerations to Reduce Morbidity

Complications experienced during lymphatic surgery have not been ubiquitously reported, and little has been described regarding how to prevent them. We present a review of complications reported during the surgical management of lymphedema and our experience with technical considerations to reduce morbidity from lymphatic surgery. A comprehensive search across different databases was conducted through November 2020. Based on the complications identified, we discussed the best approach for reducing the incidence of complications during lymphatic surgery based on our experience. The most common complications reported following lymphovenous anastomosis were re-exploration of the anastomosis, venous reflux, and surgical site infection. The most common complications using groin vascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT), submental VLNT, lateral thoracic VLNT, and supraclavicular VLNT included delayed wound healing, seroma and hematoma formation, lymphatic fluid leakage, iatrogenic lymphedema, soft-tissue infection, venous congestion, marginal nerve pseudoparalysis, and partial flap loss. Regarding intra-abdominal lymph node flaps, incisional hernia, hematoma, lymphatic fluid leakage, and postoperative ileus were commonly reported. Following suction-assisted lipectomy, significant blood loss and transient paresthesia were frequently reported. The reported complications of excisional procedures included soft-tissue infections, seroma and hematoma formation, skin-graft loss, significant blood loss, and minor skin flap necrosis. Evidently, lymphedema continues to represent a challenging condition; however, thorough patient selection, compliance with physiotherapy, and an experienced surgeon with adequate understanding of the lymphatic system can help maximize the safety of lymphatic surgery.

Jejunal Mesenteric Vascularized Lymph Node Transplantation for Lymphedema: Outcomes and Technical Modifications

BACKGROUND

The jejunal mesentery supplied by the superior mesenteric vascular tree has emerged as a viable site for vascularized lymph node transplantation. Among other benefits, it has the advantage of avoidance of the risk of donor-site lymphedema. This article reports the technique and outcomes of a novel approach to jejunal mesenteric vascularized lymph node transplantation with flap harvest from the mesenteric root to reduce the risk of small bowel ischemic complications.

METHODS

A consecutive series of patients that underwent jejunal mesenteric vascularized lymph node transplantation to treat upper extremity lymphedema were included. Preoperative and postoperative measurements were taken at fixed intervals using standardized techniques including Perometer volumetry, LDex bioimpedance spectroscopy, the Lymphedema Life Impact Scale, and the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand tool. Demographic, treatment, and outcomes data were collected, and descriptive statistics were used.

RESULTS

There were 25 patients included, all of whom had maximized their conservative therapy before undergoing surgery. At 12 months postoperatively reduction in limb volume difference was 36.7 percent (p < 0.001), reduction in LDex score was 41.4 percent (p = 0.0015), and reductions in the Lymphedema Life Impact Scale and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores were 55.7 percent (p = 0.0019) and 47.5 percent (p = 0.027), respectively. In 11 patients, there was a history of cellulitis (multiple episodes in eight), and at up to 24 months' follow-up postoperatively, there were no episodes reported (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Upper extremity lymphedema can be effectively treated surgically using the jejunal mesenteric vascularized lymph node transplantation, resulting in reduced limb volume and extracellular fluid, and improved patient-reported limb function and outcomes measures compared with optimized conservative therapy alone.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Axilla versus Wrist as the Recipient Site in Vascularized Lymph Node Transfer for Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

 Vascularized lymph node transfers (VLNT) are being used with increasing frequency for the treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). However, there is a lack of consensus in the surgical field as to which recipient site should be utilized. We, therefore, aim to assess the evidence comparing the wrist and axilla as recipient sites for VLNT in BCRL.

METHODS

 We conducted a systematic literature review to compare the wrist and axilla as recipient sites for VLNT in BCRL. Demographic data, as well as circumference reduction rate (CRR), excess volume reduction (EVR), postoperative decrease in infections per year, postoperative discontinuation of compression garments, and overall pooled complication rate were extracted from included studies. These were compared through a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

 A total of 37 studies met the inclusion criteria for a total of 689 patients. VLNTs to the wrist and axilla resulted in a decrease in CRR of 42.1 and 51.5%, and a decrease in EVR of 35.6 and 48.8%, respectively. However, our meta-analysis showed no significant differences between CRR or EVR and between wrist and axilla as recipient sites. Similarly, we found no differences in postoperative decrease in infections per year, postoperative discontinuation of compression garments, and overall pooled complication rate.

CONCLUSION

 These data suggest noninferiority between the wrist and axilla as recipient sites for VLNT in the context of BCRL. In the absence of randomized, prospective data, we hope these results can be used as an evidence-based reference and facilitate future studies.

Outcomes analysis of microsurgical physiologic lymphatic procedures for the upper extremity from the United States National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

INTRODUCTION

Physiologic microsurgical procedures to treat lymphedema include vascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT) and lymphovenous bypass (LVB). The purpose of this study was to assess 30-day outcomes of VLNT and LVB using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database.

METHODS

NSQIP was queried (2012-2018) for lymphatic procedures for upper extremity lymphedema after mastectomy. Prophylactic lymphatic procedures and those for lower extremity lymphedema were excluded. Outcomes were assessed for three groups: LVB, VLNT, and patients who had procedures simultaneously (VLNA+LVB). Primary outcomes measured were operative time, 30-day morbidities, and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

The study included 199 patients who had LVB (n = 43), VLNT (n = 145), or VLNT+LVB (n = 11). There was no difference in co-morbidities between the groups (p = 0.26). 30-day complication rates including unplanned reoperation (6.9% VLNT vs. 2.3% LVB) and readmission (0.69% VLNT vs. none in LVB) were not statistically significant (p = 0.54). Surgical site infection, wound complications, deep vein thromboembolism, and cardiac arrest was also similar among the three groups. Postoperative length of stay for VLNT (2.5 days± 2.3), LVB (1.9 days± 1.9), and VLNT+LVB (2.8 days± 0.3) did not differ significantly (p = 0.20). Operative time for LVB (305.4 min ± 186.7), VLNT (254 min ± 164.4), and VLNT+LVB (295.3 min ± 43.2) was not significantly different (p = 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis of the NSQIP data revealed that VLNT and LVB are procedures with no significant difference in perioperative morbidity. Our results support that choice of VLNT versus LVB can be justifiably made per the surgeon's preference and experience as the operations have similar complication rates.

Intra-abdominal vascularized lymph node transfer for treatment of lymphedema: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As a promising treatment for lymphedema, vascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT) is associated with a risk of iatrogenic lymphedema. Intra-abdominal vascularized lymph node flap has been increasingly applied to minimize complication.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Sciences, and Cochrane databases were searched systematically. Clinical articles describing the application of intra-abdominal flaps to treat lymphedema were included. Study characteristics, patient demographics, and operative details were recorded. Primary outcomes were recorded as circumference/volume reduction, episodes of cellulitis reduction and lymph flow assessment. Secondary outcomes were recorded as donor-site complication and recipient-site complication.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria with 594 patients in total. Donor-sites of flaps were omental/gastroepiploic, jejunal, ileocecal, and appendicular. The mean reduction rate ranged from 0.38% to 70.8%. Significant reduction in infectious episodes was reported in 10 studies. The pooled donor-site complication rate was 1.4% (95% CI, 0%-4.1%; I²  = 40%). The pooled recipient-site complication rate was 3.2% (95% CI, 1.4%-5.5%; I²  = 39%). The most common donor-site complication was minor ileus requiring prolonged nasogastric tube replacement. No donor site lymph disfunction occurred.

CONCLUSION

Intra-abdominal VLNT is an effective technique for patients with lymphedema with no obvious impairment to donor-site lymph function, as long as the operation is properly performed.

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy, Lymph Node Dissection, and Lymphedema Management Options in Melanoma

Melanoma tumor thickness and ulceration are the strongest predictors of nodal spread. The recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) have been updated in recent American Joint Committee on Cancer and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines to include tumor thickness ≥0.8 mm or any ulcerated melanoma. Mitotic rate is no longer considered an indicator for determining T category. Improvements in disease-specific survival conferred from SLNB were demonstrated through level I data in the Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial (MSLT) I. The role for completion lymph node dissection has evolved to less surgery in lieu of recent domestic (MSLT II) and international (Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial [DeCOG-SLT]) level I data having similar melanoma-specific survival. Treatment options for the prevention of treatment of lymphedema have progressed to include immediate lymphatic reconstruction, lymphovenous anastomosis, and vascularized lymph node transfer.

A meta-analysis of the efficacy of vascularised lymph node transfer in reducing limb volume and cellulitis episodes in patients with cancer treatment-related lymphoedema

BACKGROUND

Lymphoedema after cancer treatment is a chronic and disabling complication that presents a significant health care burden during survivorship with limited treatment options. Vascularised lymph node transfer (VLNT) can reconstruct lymphatic flow to reduce limb volumes, but limited higher-order evidence exists to support its effectiveness.

AIM

The aim of the study was to systematically review and meta-analyse the effectiveness of VLNT in reducing upper limb (UL) or lower limb (LL) volume and cellulitis episodes in patients with cancer treatment-related lymphoedema (CTRL).

METHODS

PubMed, Medline (Ovid) and Embase databases were searched between January 1974 and December 2019. Full-length articles where VLNT was the sole therapeutic procedure for CTRL, reporting volumetric limb, frequency of infection episodes and/or lymphoedema-specific quality-of-life data, were included in a random-effects meta-analysis of circumferential reduction rate (CRR). Methodological quality was assessed using STROBE/CONSORT, and a novel, lymphoedema-specific scoring tool was used to assess lymphoedema-specific methodological reporting. Sensitivity analyses on the site of VLNT harvest and recipient location were performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-one studies (581 patients) were eligible for inclusion. VLNT led to significant limb volume reductions in UL (above elbow pooled CRRs [CRR_P] = 42.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 36.5-48.8]; below elbow CRR_P = 34.1% [95% CI: 33.0-35.1]) and LL (above knee CRR_P = 46.8% [95% CI: 43.2-50.4]; below knee CRR_P = 54.6% [95% CI: 39.0-70.2]) CTRL. VLNT flaps from extra-abdominal donor sites were associated with greater volume reductions (CRR_P = 49.5% [95% CI: 46.5-52.5]) than those from intra-abdominal donor sites (CRR_P = 39.6% [95% CI: 37.2-42.0]) and synchronous autologous breast reconstruction/VLNT flaps (CRR_P = 32.7% [95% CI: 11.1-54.4]) (p < 0.05). VLNT was also found to reduce the mean number of cellulitis episodes by 2.1 episodes per year (95% CI: -2.7- -1.4) and increased lymphoedema-specific quality-of-life scores (mean difference in Lymphoedema-Specific Quality of Life (LYMQOL) "overall domain" = +4.26).

CONCLUSIONS

VLNT is effective in reducing excess limb volume and cellulitis episodes in both UL and LL lymphoedema after cancer treatment. However, significant heterogeneity exists in outcome reporting, and standardisation of reporting processes is recommended.

Outcomes of Vascularized Lymph Node Transplantation for Treatment of Lymphedema

BACKGROUND

A growing body of evidence supports the efficacy of surgical treatments for lymphedema. This study reports the outcomes of vascularized lymph node transplantation (VLNT) for the treatment of patients with lymphedema compared with maximal conservative treatment alone.

STUDY DESIGN

Consecutive patients undergoing VLNT to treat primary and secondary lymphedema affecting the upper or lower extremities were included. All patients were optimized preoperatively with conservative therapy. Demographic and treatment information was collected, and outcomes data were electronically captured prospectively; descriptive statistics were performed.

RESULTS

There were 134 patients included that had achieved maximal reductions by conservative therapy preoperatively. This series included jejunal mesenteric (n = 25), groin (n = 43), lateral thoracic (n = 31), omental or right gastroepiploic (n = 21), and submental (n = 14) VLN flaps. At 24 months postoperatively, there were significant reductions in limb volume change (mean [SD] 45.7% [8.7%]; p = 0.002) LDex score (mean [SD] 59.8% [8.7%]; p < 0.001), Lymphedema Life Impact Scale score (mean [SD] 61.6% [5.9]; p < 0.001), and cellulitis episodes (97.9%; p < 0.001). At 3 and 6 months postoperatively, limb volume change was significantly greater for the upper than the lower extremity, otherwise outcomes were similar. There were no flap losses and overall outcomes were similar between the different VLN flap types.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of lymphedema using VLNT resulted in progressive, significant reductions in limb volume, bioimpedance spectroscopy measurements of extracellular fluid, and episodes of cellulitis, with improved patient-reported outcomes and limb function measures compared with maximal conservative therapy alone. The complication rate was low and there were no significant outcomes differences between the VLNT types.

Combined deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap with vascularized groin lymph node transplant for treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema

For survivors of breast cancer lymphedema is their greatest survivorship burden. Modern surgical techniques to treat lymphedema are effective at reducing limb volume, symptoms of lymphedema, episodes of cellulitis, and improving patient quality of life. Physiologic procedures, including lymphovenous bypass (LVB) and vascularized lymph node transplant (VLNT), restore physiological lymphatic function within the affected extremity. In patients with post-mastectomy breast cancer-related upper extremity lymphedema that desire breast reconstruction, microvascular abdominal flap breast reconstruction can be combined with superficial inguinal (groin) VLNT to provide breast reconstruction and treatment of lymphedema in a single operation. This article reviews the indications, preoperative assessment, surgical technique, outcomes, and tips and pearls for performing this procedure.

Technical Challenges in "Micro" Lymph Node Identification during Vascularized Submental Lymph Node Flap Harvesting

Background:

The outcome of autologous lymph node (LN) transfer has depended on the number of LNs in the donor site. Unknown accuracy of the LN counting method has thrown some doubts on the reliability of the previous statistics. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of naked eye (NK) and stereo microscopy (SM) as tools for LN count.

Methods:

In total, 40 vascularized submental LN flaps were harvested from 23 fresh cadavers. The colored polymer was injected into the external carotid arteries before the harvest. LNs in each flap were counted by NK, SM, and histology in sequential order.

Results:

An estimated 175 LNs were confirmed, 4.4 ± 1.8 per flap. NK sensitivity was 33.7% compared with that of SM at 63.5%. Both methods missed all micro-lymph nodes (micro-LNs), contributing to 5.1% (9 nodes) of all LNs. Non-LN structures (647 negative counts) were composed of fat lobules, salivary gland lobules, and muscle fibers. NK specificity was 98.0%, compared with that of SM at 96.1%. SM showed a higher false positive rate at 14.3%, compared with NK at 7.4%. False positive counts were located mostly in Ib sublevel.

Conclusions:

NK and SM are imperfect tools for LN count due to poor sensitivity. If the method needs to be applied, points of considerations are (1) undetectable micro-LNs, (2) interposition of LNs with the digastric muscle and submandibular salivary gland, (3) confusion of LNs with lobules of salivary gland supplied by glandular artery or fat lobules supplied by lobular artery.

Patient-reported outcomes following lymph reconstructive surgery in lower limb lymphedema: A systematic review of literature

OBJECTIVE

Lymphedema is a chronic, progressive and burdensome disease that is known to have a substantial impact on quality of life (QOL). Hence, the assessment of QOL is an important aspect of any study which seeks to evaluate outcomes after lymph reconstructive surgery. We therefore aimed to analyze currently available patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMS) for patients with lower limb lymphedema (LLL) with regard to their psychometric properties. Furthermore, we intended to evaluate the change in QOL in patient undergoing lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA) or vascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT).

METHODS

A literature research of four databases on studies that included PROMS for LLL was conducted. All selected studies were assessed for validity according Consensus-based Standards for the selection of Health Measurement Instruments. Studies that used the Lymph Quality of Life Measure for Limb Lymphedema (LYMQOL) after LVA and/or VLNT were included for quantitative analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 988 studies were screened, of which 30 studies were included in this review. We identified six validated PROMS to assess LLL. Of those, the LYMQOL was the most commonly used questionnaire. Based on the LYMQOL, a significant improvement of QOL in LLL was noted in all studies after reconstructive lymph surgery (LVA/VLNT) regardless of lymphedema etiology, stage, or time since diagnosis. On the basis of the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of Health Measurement Instruments criteria, the Lymphoedema Functioning, Disability and Health Questionnaire for Lower Limb Lymphoedema seems to be superior in terms of its psychometric properties.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant improvement in the QOL in patients with LLL after reconstructive lymph surgery can be observed. Future studies on reconstructive lymph surgery need to include both objective and congruent volume measurements, as well as data on QOL based a well-validated PROM such as the Lymphoedema Functioning, Disability and Health Questionnaire for Lower Limb Lymphoedema.

Current operative management and therapeutic algorithm of lymphedema in the lower extremities

Lymphedema is defined as the abnormal accumulation of interstitial fluid in subcutaneous tissues resulting from cancer, cancer treatment (surgery and/or radiotherapy), infection, inflammatory disorders, obesity, and hereditary syndromes. Surgical management of lymphedema can be broadly classified into two categories, reductive surgical techniques such as direct excision, suction assisted protein lipectomy (SAPL) or radical reduction with perforator preservation (RRPP); and physiological surgical procedures such as lymphaticovenous anastomosis (LVA) and vascularised lymph node transfer (VLNT). These techniques and their various combinations were evaluated. The results revealed patients with reversible lymphedema (ISL stage I, mild severity) benefit most from physiological procedures (LVA or VLNT) which can reduce the chance of disease progression to the chronic, solid phase. Reductive techniques such as SAPL, RPPP, or direct excision procedures should be reserved for patients with advanced - severe lymphedema (ISL stages II and especially stage III) as the surgical treatment of choice. In this study, current literature on the surgical treatment of lower extremity lymphedema is reviewed and discussed in conjunction with authors' clinical experiences. An algorithm is presented, based on clinical evidence and experience which aims to provide a structured approach to managing lower limb lymphedema.

Lymphatic System Transfer for Lymphedema Treatment: Transferring the Lymph Nodes with Their Lymphatic Vessels

Background:

Vascularized lymph node transfer is the most common physiological procedure indicated for severe lymphedema. We describe a new physiological treatment strategy for lymphedema, lymphatic system transfer (LYST), which comprises transfer of the vascularized afferent lymphatic vessels along with their draining lymph nodes.

Methods:

All patients undergoing LYST for treatment of lymphedema from 2017 to 2018 were identified. Patient demographics, intraoperative factors, and postoperative outcomes were reviewed.

Results:

Three patients underwent LYST. Average patient age and body mass index were 65.3 years and 23.6 kg/m², respectively. Indications for LYST were upper extremity lymphedema following mastectomy, radiation, and lymphadenectomy (2) and unilateral lower extremity lymphedema following total hysterectomy and bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy (1). In all patients, lymphatic vessels could not be visualized by preoperative lymphoscintigraphy. All LYST flaps were procured from the groin region. A superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator flap, including the afferent lymphatic vessels and their draining lymph nodes, was elevated. A large portion of the skin paddle was deepithelialized, and the LYST flap was inset into a subcutaneous tunnel made in the lymphedematous limb. All LYST flaps survived completely. No donor site complications were observed. The average rate of estimated volume decrease in the patients at eighth month follow-up was 21.9%. Average follow-up was 11 months.

Conclusions:

Because the afferent lymphatic vessels are transferred with the lymph nodes, a presumably lesser degree of lymphangiogenesis is required for a LYST flap to commence its physiological function. Its real-time physiological lymphatic drainage is demonstrated in a video.

Chimeric thoracodorsal lymph node flap with a perforator-based fasciocutaneous skin island for treatment of lower extremity lymphedema: A case report

Free vascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT) is applied more and more in the treatment of lymphedema. A random-pattern skin island with VLNT is of use but can have its limitations in flap inset. We describe an option for free VLNT in the treatment of lower extremity lymphedema. We present the case of a chimeric thoracodorsal lymph node flap (TAP-VLNT) with a thoracodorsal artery perforator (TAP) flap (5 × 9 cm) to the lower leg in a 22-year old female patient with stage 2 lower leg lymphedema caused by severe traumatic skin decollement and postoperative scarring after a car accident. TAP flap enabled tailored and tension-free wound closure at the recipient site after scar release and lymph node flap inset. The anastomosis was performed to the anterior tibial artery. The postoperative course was uneventful with no complications or secondary donor-site lymphedema. Follow-up at 6 months showed reasonable cosmetic and functional outcomes. The circumference reduction rate was up to 11% and the patient reported improved quality of life. The purpose of this report is to describe a case of a more flexible lymph node flap inset and tension-free wound closure by harvesting a thin thoracodorsal artery perforator (TAP) skin island together with a thoracodorsal VLNT as a chimeric flap (TAP-VLNT) for treatment of lower extremity lymphedema. Larger series with longer follow-up data are needed to justify its widespread use and demonstrate long-term results.

Optimizing Quality of Life for Patients with Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema: A Prospective Study Combining DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction and Lymphedema Surgery

BACKGROUND

Patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema can be treated with a simultaneous deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap, vascularized inguinal lymph node transfer, and lymphovenous anastomosis for aesthetic breast reconstruction and lymphedema in one operation.

METHODS

The authors performed a comparison of prospectively followed patients who underwent free flap breast reconstruction with vascularized inguinal lymph node transfer and anastomosis to a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent free flap breast reconstruction with vascularized inguinal lymph node transfer alone.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients underwent DIEP flap reconstruction with vascularized inguinal lymph node transfer and lymphovenous anastomosis, and 21 received a free flap with lymph node transfer alone. There were no significant differences in demographics, adjuvant chemotherapy, or radiation therapy. The average number of nodes removed was also equivalent (21.2 versus 21.4 nodes). Two anastomoses per patient, on average, were performed (range, one to four) in the combined cohort, and all patients (100 percent) reported a subjective improvement in symptoms, compared with 81.0 percent of patients undergoing only lymph node transfer (p = 0.019). Perometer measurements demonstrated a significant reduction between the groups at early time points [3 months, 40.7 percent versus 20.0 percent (p = 0.037); 6 months, 57.0 percent versus 44.5 percent (p = 0.043)]; however, the difference was not statistically significant at 12 months (60.4 percent versus 57.8 percent; p = 0.43).

CONCLUSION

This is the first prospective study demonstrating the safety and efficacy of a combined DIEP flap with vascularized inguinal lymph node transfer and lymphovenous anastomosis, which may be superior to lymph node transfer alone.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Gastroepiploic vascularized lymph node transfer for the treatment of extremity lymphedema: comparison between middle and distal inset

BACKGROUND

Middle and distal insets of gastroepiploic vascularized lymph node transfer (GE-VLNT) for extremity lymphedema have been described. However, there has been no prior comparison of surgical or patient-reported outcomes between these techniques. We analyzed the outcomes between both insets in patients with extremity lymphedema.

METHODS

Retrospective review of patients with extremity-lymphedema who underwent GE-VLNT. Two groups were analyzed: middle and distal recipient inset. We analyzed 6-month surgical and patient-reported outcomes using the Lymphedema Life Impact Scale-v2 (LLISv2) and scar satisfaction utilizing the Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire (PSAQ).

RESULTS

Between 2017 and 2019, 26 patients with stage II unilateral extremity lymphedema underwent laparoscopically-harvested GE-VLNT (13 distal and 13 middle inset). There were no differences in patient demographics between groups. Mean hospital stay for patients with upper extremity lymphedema was 1.3 vs. 4.0 days (P<0.05), and for lower extremity lymphedema was 1.0 vs. 4.5 days (P<0.05), middle vs. distal inset, respectively. Mean return to daily activities for patients with upper extremity lymphedema was 13.4 vs. 33.4 days (P<0.05), and for lower extremity lymphedema was 16.0 vs. 29.5 days (P<0.05), middle vs. distal inset, respectively. Both middle and distal inset showed significant mean excess volume reduction at 6 months postoperatively for both upper and lower extremity lymphedema (upper extremity: middle inset 23.3%, distal inset: 22.0%; lower extremity: middle inset 23.3% and distal inset 13.3%). LLISv2 scores showed improved functional outcomes postoperatively in both upper and lower extremity lymphedema with both insets. Scar satisfaction with appearance and symptoms was higher with middle inset (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

GE-VLNT is an effective surgical treatment for extremity lymphedema. The middle placement showed shorter hospital stay, early return to work and higher patient satisfaction.

Intra-abdominal Lymph Nodes: A Privileged Donor Site for Vascularized Lymph Node Transfer

A variety of donor options for vascularized lymph node transfer for the surgical treatment of lymphedema have been described. Intra-abdominal harvest sites including the gastroepiploic nodes within the omental flap and the mesenteric node flap are distinguished from their extra-abdominal counterparts by the absent risk of iatrogenic donor site lymphedema and discrete scar location, as well as the ability to harvest up to 3 vascularized nodal packets from 1 donor site. However, there are also potential morbidities including hernia and intra-abdominal visceral injuries. Patient selection and flap harvest techniques are reviewed.

Comprehensive Overview of Available Donor Sites for Vascularized Lymph Node Transfer

The field of lymphedema surgery has grown tremendously in recent years. In particular, the diversity of available donor sites for vascularized lymph node transfer has increased, and new donor sites are emerging. Researchers have explored a number of different donor sites, and their reports have demonstrated promising results with each site. Unfortunately, there are limited studies providing a comprehensive analysis of the available donor sites focusing on both the technical aspects of the harvest, including complications and donor site morbidity, and the efficacy and outcomes following transfer. The present review aims to present a comprehensive analysis of the available donor sites for vascularized lymph node transfer and a summary of the experience from a single center of excellence.

Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcomes following Surgical Treatment of Lymphedema

INTRODUCTION

Analysis of quality of life (QOL) outcomes is an important aspect of lymphedema treatment since this disease can substantially impact QOL in affected individuals. There are a growing number of studies reporting patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) for patients with lymphedema. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of outcomes and utilization of PROMs following surgical treatment of lymphedema.

METHODS

A literature search of four databases was performed up to and including March, 2019. Studies included reported on QOL outcomes after physiologic procedures, defined as either lymphovenous bypass (LVB) or vascularized lymph node transplant (VLNT), to treat upper and/or lower extremity primary or secondary lymphedema.

RESULTS

In total, 850 studies were screened-of which, 32 studies were included in this review. Lymphovenous bypass was the surgical intervention in 16 studies, VLNT in 11 studies, and both in 5 studies. Of the 32 total studies, 16 used validated survey tools. The most commonly used PROM was the lymph quality of life measure for limb lymphedema (LYMQOL) (12 studies). In the remaining four studies, the upper limb lymphedema 27 scale (ULL27), the short form 36 questionnaire (SF-36), the lymphedema functioning, disability and health questionnaire (Lymph-ICF), and lymphedema life impact scale (LLIS) were each used once. QOL improvement following surgical treatment was noted in all studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Physiologic surgical treatment of lymphedema results in improved QOL outcomes in most patients. The use of validated PROM tools is increasing but there is no current consensus on use. Future research to evaluate the psychometric properties of PROMs in lymphedema is needed to guide the development and use of lymphedema-specific tools.

Preoperative Assessment of Upper Extremity Secondary Lymphedema

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the most commonly used preoperative assessment tools for patients undergoing surgical treatment for secondary upper extremity lymphedema. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study performed at a tertiary cancer center specializing in the treatment of secondary lymphedema. Lymphedema evaluation included limb volume measurements, bio-impedance, indocyanine green lymphography, lymphoscintigraphy, magnetic resonance angiography, lymphedema life impact scale (LLIS) and upper limb lymphedema 27 (ULL-27) questionnaires. Results: 118 patients were evaluated. Limb circumference underestimated lymphedema compared to limb volume. Bioimpedance (L-Dex) scores highly correlated with limb volume excess (r2 = 0.714, p < 0.001). L-Dex scores were highly sensitive and had a high positive predictive value for diagnosing lymphedema in patients with a volume excess of 10% or more. ICG was highly sensitive in identifying lymphedema. Lymphoscintigraphy had an overall low sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of lymphedema. MRA was highly sensitive in diagnosing lymphedema and adipose hypertrophy as well as useful in identifying axillary vein obstruction and occult metastasis. Patients with minimal limb volume difference still demonstrated significantly impaired quality of life. Conclusion: Preoperative assessment of lymphedema is complex and requires multimodal assessment. MRA, L-Dex, ICG, and PROMs are all valuable components of preoperative assessment.

Complications after vascularized jejunal mesenteric lymph node transfer: A 3-year experience

BACKGROUND

Vascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT) is a well-established method for the surgical management of refractory extremity lymphedema. Generally, donor lymph nodes are harvested from the axilla, groin, or supraclavicular area. However, these sites offer their own disadvantages and introduce risk for inducing lymphedema at the surgical donor site. In our experience, the jejunal mesentery can be an excellent source of lymph nodes without the risk of donor site lymphedema. Long term complications are unknown for this procedure; we report our experience, complication rates, and lessons learned.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed for all patients at our institution undergoing surgical treatment of lymphedema using jejunal mesenteric VLNT from February 2015 to February 2018. Demographic data, length of follow up, and surgical complications were reviewed.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients have undergone jejunal VLNT at our institution during the three-year study period, with a total of 30 transfers. Five patients had a concurrent omental lymph node transfer. Average length of follow up was 17.6 months (range 1.0-36.8 months). There was one flap loss in this time frame (3.3%). Four patients developed hernias post-operatively (13.8%), and three had nonoperative small bowel obstructions (10.3%). One patient had a postoperative wound infection at the abdominal incision (3.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Jejunal VLNT can be an effective option for surgical treatment of lymphedema, without the risk of postoperative donor site lymphedema. Patients and surgeons should be aware of the risks of hernia and small bowel obstruction with this method compared to other lymph node sources.

Management of High-Output Chyle Leak after Harvesting of Vascularized Supraclavicular Lymph Nodes

Vascularized lymph node transfer is a physiologic microsurgical technique used for the treatment of lymphedema. As vascularized lymph node transfer is becoming more common, it is essential that one is aware of all potential complications associated with vascularized lymph node transfer and know how to avoid and manage them when they do occur. The authors recently encountered a complication after supraclavicular vascularized lymph node transfer that has not been previously reported. A patient developed a recalcitrant high-output (>500 ml/day) chyle leak in the neck donor site after supraclavicular vascularized lymph node transfer harvest. In this article, the authors share their experience with massive chyle leak and review the management strategies of how to effectively avoid and treat this potentially dangerous complication. This review of a previously unreported complication of supraclavicular vascularized lymph node transfer is timely and important, as this procedure is increasingly being offered to patients, and surgeons performing these procedures should be familiar with effectively managing this potentially dangerous complication. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Therapeutic, V.

Comparisons of Submental and Groin Vascularized Lymph Node Flaps Transfer for Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema

Background:

The vascularized groin and submental lymph node (VGLN and VSLN) flaps are valuable options in the treatment of lymphedema. This study was to compare outcomes between VGLN and VSLN transfers for breast cancer–related lymphedema.

Methods:

Between January 2008 and December 2016, VGLN and VSLN transfers for upper limb lymphedema were compared including flap characteristics, flap elevation time, complications, and limb circumference changes.

Results:

All flaps survived. Similar vein (2.6 versus 3.2 mm; P = 0.3) and artery diameter (2.1 versus 2.8 mm; P = 0.3) and number of lymph nodes (3 versus 4; P = 0.4) were found between VGLN and VSLN groups, respectively. Circumferential reduction rate was higher in VSLN than VGLN (P = 0.04) group. Vascular complication rate with salvage rate was not statistically different between the 2 groups. Donor-site complication and total complication rates were statistically higher in VGLN than VSLN flaps (7.7% versus 0%, P = 0.004; 46.2% versus 23.3%, P = 0.002). At a mean 39.8 ± 22.4 months, the circumferential reduction rate was statistically higher in VSLN than in the VGLN group (55.5 ± 14.3% versus 48.4 ± 23.9%, P = 0.04). Both flaps were effectively decreased in the episodes of cellulitis.

Conclusions:

Both VGLN and VSLN flaps are valuable surgical options in treating breast cancer–related lymphedema. However, the VSLN flap for breast cancer–related lymphedema is better in providing more significant improvements in limb circumference, a faster flap harvest time, decreased complication rates, and minimal donor-site iatrogenic lymphedema.

Vascularized Lymph Node Transfer for Lymphedema

Advances in our understanding of the lymphatic system and the pathogenesis of lymphedema have resulted in the development of effective surgical treatments. Vascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT) involves the microvascular transplantation of functional lymph nodes into an extremity to restore physiological lymphatic function. It is most commonly performed by transferring combined deep inferior epigastric artery perforator and superficial inguinal lymph node flaps for postmastectomy breast reconstruction. For patients who do not require or are unable to undergo free abdominal breast reconstruction or have lymphedema affecting the lower extremity, several other VLNT options are available. These include flaps harvested from within the axillary, inguinal, or cervical lymph node basins, and lymph node flaps from within the abdominal cavity. This article reviews the lymph node flap options and techniques available for VLNT for lymphedema.

Combining Autologous Breast Reconstruction and Vascularized Lymph Node Transfer

Breast cancer patients are at risk for developing postmastectomy lymphedema syndrome of the ipsilateral upper extremity following treatment for breast cancer in the setting of an axillary dissection, postoperative radiation, and chemotherapy. For patients suffering from lymphedema who are also seeking breast reconstruction, combining an autologous abdominal free flap with a vascularized inguinal lymph node transfer provides patients the opportunity to have an aesthetic breast reconstruction as well as the potential to improve their lymphedema in a single operation. The present article aims to provide a description of the salient features of this approach including the preoperative preparation, the surgical technique, the postoperative management and complications, and a summary of the outcomes.