Economics of Lymphovenous Bypass

Surgical Treatment of Lymphedema in the Upper Extremity

The advent of supermicrosurgery has led to an increasing interest in the surgical management of lymphedema through the reconstruction of the lymphatic network, that is, the physiologic approach. Broadly, this can be divided into 2 main techniques: lymphaticovenous anastomosis and lymph node transfer. In the United Kingdom, the British Lymphology Society does not provide any recommendations on surgical management. Moreover, surgical treatment of lymphedema is not widely practiced within the National Health Service due to low-certainty evidence. Herein, we discuss our experience in physiologic reconstruction for lymphedema.

Lymphaticovenous Anastomosis and Vascularized Lymph Node Transfer for the Treatment of Lymphedema-A Canadian Case Series

Introduction: Lymphedema is a chronic and debilitating condition. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of lymphaticovenous anastomosis (LVA) and vascularized lymph node transfers (VLNT) for the treatment of patients suffering from lymphedema, mainly by comparing pre- and postoperative daily compression use, limb volumes, and occurrence of cellulitis. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who were treated by a single surgeon for lymphedema with LVA and/or VLNT between March 2018 and February 2020. Eighteen limbs met the inclusion criteria. The severity of lymphatic dysfunction was assessed by indocyanine green lymphangiography. Patients with patent vessels were offered LVA, whereas those without were offered VLNT. Pre- and postoperative circumferential limb measurements, use of compression garments, and postoperative complications were compared. Results: Nine limbs underwent LVA, 8 underwent VLNT, and one both. The minimum follow-up was 12 months. Postoperatively, all but 3 patients (83%) were able to cease daily compression. When considering excess limb volumes, the average reduction was 58%. This reduction was achieved despite compression weaning. Forty-four percent of patients (8) reported episodes of recurrent cellulitis preoperatively, while postoperatively, only 3 of those patients (17%) experienced cellulitis, which was statistically significant (P  =  .018). No surgical complications occurred. Conclusions: Patients with lymphedema can benefit from LVA and VLNT surgery. An important effect of surgery is decreased dependence on daily compression garments to maintain a stable and reasonable limb volume. The reduction of limb circumference after 1 year was similar to LVA and VLNT. Episodes of cellulitis were significantly lower after the intervention.

Lymphatic flow through (LyFT) ALT flap: an original solution to reconstruct soft tissue loss with lymphatic leakage or lower limb lymphedema

INTRODUCTION

The lympho-venous shunt using the distal vein of ALT flap pedicle allowed at the same time the coverage of the inguinal defects and to perform lymphovenous shunt into a run-in vein of the descending branch of the lateral circumflex femoral pedicle, draining the lymph through the flap pedicle. Surgical technique, complications and final outcomes (both clinical and lymphoscintigraphic) are reported.

METHODS

Five patients (45.8 y.o.[22-70]) with groin soft tissue loss with lymphatic leakage or lower limb lymphedema, benefited of the described technique. The ALT flap was used to cover the defect and, at the same time, we could perform a lymphovenous shunt between afferent lymphatics to the thigh and the descending branch of the lateral circumflex femoral pedicle, distal to the perforator nourishing the flap. Clinical and lymphoscintigraphic assessment of the limbs, cease of lymphorrhea or cellulitis/lymphangitis episodes, eventual downstaging of physiologic/physical therapy were recorded. LYMphatic Quality Of Life in leg (LYMQoLLeg) and patient satisfaction were evaluated.

RESULTS

Average flap size was 88.8cm² (range 84-126). The mean number of multi-lymphovenous anastomosis (MLVA) performed was 1.8 (range 1-3) per patient with 1-3 lymphatics shunted into each vein. Only one hemato-seroma requiring surgical revision. Mean improvement of perometer values was 48.2% (range 27.7-67.7) with an average follow-up of 13.6 months (range 12-17). Lymphoscintigraphy showed disappearing of the lymphatic leak and lymphedema with a high satisfaction of LYMQoL score.

DISCUSSION

The combination of pedicle flap with lympho-venous bypass as lymphatic derivation concept, improving the chronic morbidity scenarios of lymphatic complications.

Outcomes of Lymphovenous Anastomosis for Upper Extremity Lymphedema: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA) is an accepted microsurgical treatment for lymphedema of the upper extremity (UE). This study summarizes and analyzes recent data on the outcomes associated with LVA for UE lymphedema at varying degrees of severity.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in the PubMed database to extract articles published through June 19, 2020. Studies reporting data on postoperative improvement in limb circumference/volume or subjective improvement in quality of life for patients with primary or secondary lymphedema of the UE were included. Extracted data consisted of demographic data, number of patients and upper limbs, duration of symptoms before LVA, surgical technique, follow-up, and objective and subjective outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 92 articles were identified, of which 16 studies were eligible for final inclusion comprising a total of 349 patients and 244 upper limbs. The average age of patients ranged from 38.4 to 64 years. The duration of lymphedema before LVA ranged from 9 months to 7 years. The mean length of follow-up ranged from 6 months to 8 years. Fourteen studies reported an objective improvement in limb circumference or volume measurements following LVA, ranging from 0% to 100%. Patients included had varying severity of lymphedema, ranging from Campisi stage I to IV. The maximal improvement in objective measurements was found in patients with lower stage lymphedema.

CONCLUSION

LVA is a safe, effective technique for the treatment of UE lymphedema refractory to decompressive treatment. Results of LVA indicate greater efficacy in earlier stages of lymphedema before advanced lymphatic sclerosis.

Single Center Retrospective Analysis of Cost and Payments for Lymphatic Surgery

Background

Insurance coverage for microsurgical lymphatic surgery continues to be sporadic, as the procedures continue to be labeled investigational. The objective of this study was to examine the typical payment patterns of our clinical practice for microsurgical lymphatic procedures.

Methods

We performed a single center, single surgeon retrospective case review for all lymphovenous bypass and vascularized lymph node transfer cases preformed from 2018 to 2020. We then queried the available financial data and calculated total charges, total paid by insurance, total variable cost (cost to the hospital), and the contribution margin (difference between the amount paid and variable cost). Descriptive statistics were then collected for each subgroup for analysis.

Results

Financial data were collected on 22 patients with 10 left-sided, 11 right-sided and one bilateral procedure performed. Seven procedures were done prophylactically, and 15 were done for existing lymphedema. An estimated 10 of 22 patients (45%) had Medicare, Medicaid, or Tricare, with the remaining having private insurance. We calculated an average cost of $48,516.73, with average payment of $10,818.68, average variable cost of $5,567.10, for a contribution margin of +$5251.58.

Conclusions

Lymphedema remains a common complication of surgery and a significant cost burden to patients and the healthcare system. Microsurgical procedures offer several advantages over medical therapy. In our practice, we were routinely reimbursed for both prophylactic and therapeutic procedures with positive contribution margins for the hospital and ratios similar to other surgeries. Despite the limitations of a small retrospective review, there is no similar published cost analysis data in the current literature.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Lymph Node Transfer vs Lymphovenous Bypass for Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema

BACKGROUND

Lymph node transfer (LNT) and lymphovenous bypass (LVB) have been described as 2 major surgical options for patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) who have failed conservative therapy. The objective of our study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing LNT and LVB for the treatment of BCRL.

STUDY DESIGN

Rates of infection, lymph leak, and failure of LNT and LVB were obtained from a previously published meta-analysis. Failure of surgery was defined as the inability to cease compression therapy postoperatively. Procedural costs were calculated from Medicare reimbursement rates. Cost of conservative management of postoperative surgical site infection, lymph leak, and continued decongestive physiotherapy after failed surgery were obtained from literature review. Average utility scores for each health state were calculated using a visual analog scale survey, then converted to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A decision tree was constructed, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was assessed at $50,000/QALY. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of our findings.

RESULTS

LNT was less costly ($22,492 vs $31,927) and more effective (31.82 QALY vs 29.24 QALY) than LVB. One-way (deterministic) sensitivity analysis demonstrated that LNT became cost-ineffective when its failure rate was more than 43.8%. LVB became more cost-effective than LNT when its failure rate was less than 21.4%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte-Carlo simulation indicated that even with uncertainty present in the variables analyzed, the majority of simulations (97%) favored LNT as the more cost-effective strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

LNT is a dominant, cost-effective strategy compared to LVB for the treatment of BCRL.

Medicine and Phlebolymphology: Time to Change?

Biomedical science is undergoing a reappraisal of its scientific advancement process and of the related healthcare management. Progress in medicine should combine improvements of knowledge, efficacy, and safety of diagnostic/therapeutic procedures, with adequate cost-effectiveness profiles. This narrative review is aimed at assessing in medicine, more specifically in phlebology and lymphology: (a) scientific literature possible biases, (b) the level of evidence, comprehensiveness, and cost-effectiveness of the main therapeutic options, and (c) the possible contribution of integrative and translational medicine. Current medical research may have cognitive biases, or industry-tied influences, which impacts clinical practice. Some reductionism, with an increasing use of drugs and technology, often neglecting the understanding and care of the root causative pathways of the diseases, is affecting biomedical science as well. Aging brings a relevant burden of chronic degenerative diseases and disabilities, with relevant socio-economic repercussions; thus, a major attention to cost-effectiveness and appropriateness of healthcare is warranted. In this scenario, costly and innovative but relatively validated therapies may tend to be adopted in venous and lymphatic diseases, such as varicose veins, leg venous ulcer, post-thrombotic syndrome, pelvic congestion syndrome, and lymphedema. Conversely, a more comprehensive approach to the basic pathophysiology of chronic venous and lymphatic insufficiency and the inclusion of pharmacoeconomics analyses would benefit overall patients' management. Erroneous lifestyle and nutrition, together with chronic stress-induced syndromes, significantly influence chronic degenerative phlebo-lymphatic diseases. The main active epigenetic socio-biologic factors are obesity, dysfunctions of musculo-respiratory-vascular pumps, pro-inflammatory nutrition, hyperactivation of stress axis, and sedentarism. An overall critical view of the scientific evidence and innovations in phebolymphology could be of help to improve efficacy, safety, and sustainability of current practice. Translational and integrative medicine may contribute to a patient-centered approach. Conversely, reductionism, eminence/reimbursement-based decisional processes, patients' lack of education, industry-influenced science, and physician's improvable awareness, may compromise efficacy, safety, appropriateness, and cost-effectiveness of future diagnostic and therapeutic patterns of phlebology and lymphology.

Combining vascularized lymph node transfer with autologous breast reconstruction: A Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Database cost-utility analysis

BACKGROUND

The cost effectiveness of combining vascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT) with autologous breast reconstruction has not been established. Herein we describe the use of Markov modeling to evaluate the cost utility of VLNT with delayed autologous breast reconstruction for patients with breast cancer related lymphedema (BCRL).

METHODS

We conducted a cost effectiveness analysis using a Markov model with microsimulation. The characteristics and associated life expectancy of the hypothetical patients were derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Costs of were derived from the publicly available sources and health economics literature. The utilities were based on the best available literature. The relative effectiveness of VLNT was derived from a meta-analysis of the literature. A specific strategy is considered attractive if the estimate of incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) is less than the amount decision makers are willing to pay for an additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain. A baseline willingness to pay of $50,000 USD per additional QALY was used for analysis.

RESULTS

The base case situation demonstrated an overall ICER of $13898.76/QALY for adding VLNT to delayed autologous abdominally based breast reconstruction in the situation where lymphedema is already present, which suggests it is cost-effective at the chosen willingness to pay.

DISCUSSION

This cost-utility simulation demonstrates that it is cost effective to combine delayed breast reconstruction with VLNT in patients with existing lymphedema. This could have implications for the application of the evolving technique of VLNT in the treatment of different subpopulations of breast cancer patients, and future clinical research.

Surgical management of lymphedema: a review of current literature

Lymphedema may be characterized by a progressive clinical course and limitations in improvement despite multi-modality treatment. In westernized countries, it most commonly presents as an undesirable complication of cancer treatment, particularly breast cancer. In the past several decades, surgical treatments for lymphedema have advanced, alongside developments in microsurgery. Lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA) and lymph node transplantation are physiological therapies that may reduce lymphedema through addressing its route cause. Ablative techniques such as liposuction and subcutaneous excision aid in resolving the accumulation of proteinaceous adipose and fibrotic tissue seen in advanced lymphedema. The goal of this review is to examine the outcomes and limitations of current surgical techniques used in lymphedema management.