BackgroundLymph node dissection is often performed as a part of surgical treatment for breast cancer and malignant melanoma to prevent malignant cells from traveling via the lymphatic system. Currently little is known about postoperative lymphatic drainage pattern alterations. This knowledge may be useful for management of recurrent cancer and prevention of breast cancer related lymphedema. We mapped the complete superficial lymphatic system of a dog and used this canine model to perform preliminary studies of lymphatic architectural changes in postoperative condition.MethodsLymphatic territories (lymphosomes) were mapped with 4 female mongrel carcasses using an indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescent lymphography and a radiographic microinjection technique. Two live dogs were then subjected to unilateral lymph node dissection of lymph basins of the forelimb, and ICG lymphography and lymphangiogram were performed 6 months after the surgery to investigate lymphatic changes. Lymphatic patterns in the carcass were then compared with postoperative lymphatic patterns in the live dogs.ResultsTen lymphosomes were identified, corresponding with ten lymphatic basins. Postoperative fluorescent lymphographic images and lymphangiograms in the live dogs revealed small caliber lymphatic network fulfilling gaps in the surgical area and collateral lymphatic vessels arising from the network connecting to lymph nodes in the contralateral and ipsilateral neck in one dog and the ipsilateral subclavicular vein in another dog.ConclusionOur canine lymphosome map allowed us to observe lymphatic collateral formations after lymph node dissection in live dogs. This canine model may help clarify our understanding of postoperative lymphatic changes in humans in future studies.
Loss of a breast free flap is a relatively rare but catastrophic occurrence. Our study aims to identify risk factors for flap loss and to assess whether different salvage techniques affect flap salvage. We performed a retrospective review of all breast free flaps performed at a single institution from 2000 to 2010. Overall, 2138 flaps were performed in 1608 patients (unilateral, 1120 and bilateral, 488) with 44 flap losses (2.1%). Age, body mass index, smoking, radiation, chemotherapy, and surgeon experience did not affect flap loss. Abdominal flaps based on a single perforator were at significantly higher risk for flap loss compared with flaps based on multiple perforators (P = 0.0007). Subgroup analysis of the subset of 166 compromised free flaps (flaps requiring a return to the operating room, an intraoperative anastomotic revision, or loss/partial loss of a free flap) demonstrated deep inferior epigastric perforator, and other flaps (superficial inferior epigastric artery and superior gluteal artery perforator) were significantly associated with flap loss [odds ratio (OR) 5.20; P = 0.03 and OR 6.91; P = 0.0004, respectively] compared with transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous and muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps. Although an intraoperative complication was not associated with a flap loss, the need for a reoperation was strongly predictive (P < 0.0001). Flap salvage was the highest within the first 24 hours (83.7%) and significantly less between days 1 and 3 (38.6%; P < 0.0001) and beyond 4 days (29.4%; P < 0.0001). Longer ischemia time was significantly associated with flap loss (P = 0.04). Salvage techniques (aspirin, heparinzation, thrombectomy, and thrombolytic) had no impact on flap salvage rates. Heparinization and thrombolytics were associated with higher loss rates (OR 3.40; P = 0.003 and OR 10.36; P < 0.0001, respectively). Free flap loss following breast reconstruction is multifactorial with higher losses in superficial inferior epigastric artery and gluteal flaps, single-perforator abdominal flaps, and longer ischemia times. Salvage rates are most successful within the first 24 hours, and the use of heparinization, aspirin, and thrombolytics does not improve salvage rates.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.