Yoshida Shuhei, Imai Hirofumi, Roh Solji, Mese Toshiro, Koshima Isao
The Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, the International Center for Lymphedema, Hiroshima University Hospital, 1-2-3, Kasumi, Minami Ward, Hiroshima 734-8551, Japan.
J Clin Med. 2023 Feb 21;12(5):1727. doi: 10.3390/jcm12051727.
Liposuction is the most frequently performed debulking procedure in patients with lymphedema. However, it remains uncertain whether liposuction is equally effective for upper extremity lymphedema (UEL) and lower extremity lymphedema (LEL). In this study, we retrospectively compared the effectiveness of liposuction according to whether it was performed for LEL or UEL, and identified factors associated with outcomes.
All patients had been treated at least once by lymphovenous anastomosis or vascularized lymphatic transplant before liposuction but without sufficient volume reduction. The patients were divided into an LEL group and a UEL group, and then subdivided further according to whether they completed their planned compression therapy into an LEL compliance group, an LEL non-compliance group, a UEL compliance group, and a UEL non-compliance group. The reduction rates in LEL (REL) and in UEL (REU) were compared between the groups.
In total, 28 patients with unilateral lymphedema were enrolled (LEL compliance group, = 12; LEL non-compliance group, = 6; UEL compliance group, = 10; UEL non-compliance group, = 0). The non-compliance rate was significantly higher in the LEL group than in the UEL group ( = 0.04). REU was significantly higher than REL (100.1 ± 37.3% vs. 59.3 ± 49.4%; = 0.03); however, there was no significant difference between REL in the LEL compliance group (86 ± 31%) and REU in the UEL group (101 ± 37%) ( = 0.32).
Liposuction seems to be more effective in UEL than in LEL, probably because the compression therapy required for management after liposuction is easier to implement for UEL. The lower pressure and smaller coverage area required for postoperative management after liposuction in the upper limb may explain why liposuction is more effective in UEL than in LEL.
抽脂术是治疗淋巴水肿患者最常用的减容手术。然而,抽脂术对上肢淋巴水肿(UEL)和下肢淋巴水肿(LEL)是否同样有效仍不确定。在本研究中,我们回顾性比较了针对LEL或UEL进行抽脂术的有效性,并确定了与手术结果相关的因素。
所有患者在抽脂术前均至少接受过一次淋巴管静脉吻合术或带血管蒂淋巴管移植术治疗,但减容效果不佳。将患者分为LEL组和UEL组,然后根据是否完成计划的压迫治疗进一步细分为LEL依从组、LEL不依从组、UEL依从组和UEL不依从组。比较各组LEL(REL)和UEL(REU)的减少率。
共纳入28例单侧淋巴水肿患者(LEL依从组,n = 12;LEL不依从组,n = 6;UEL依从组,n = 10;UEL不依从组,n = 0)。LEL组的不依从率显著高于UEL组(P = 0.04)。REU显著高于REL(100.1±37.3%对59.3±49.4%;P = 0.03);然而,LEL依从组的REL(86±31%)与UEL组的REU(101±37%)之间无显著差异(P = 0.32)。
抽脂术对UEL似乎比对LEL更有效,可能是因为抽脂术后管理所需的压迫治疗对UEL更容易实施。上肢抽脂术后管理所需的较低压力和较小覆盖面积可能解释了为什么抽脂术对UEL比对LEL更有效。