4.2 Article

The Octopus Lymphaticovenular Anastomosis: Evolving Beyond the Standard Supermicrosurgical Technique

Journal

JOURNAL OF RECONSTRUCTIVE MICROSURGERY
Volume 31, Issue 6, Pages 450-457

Publisher

THIEME MEDICAL PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1548746

Keywords

supermicrosurgery; lymphaticovenular anastomosis; LVA; lymphedema surgery

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundSupermicrosurgical lymphaticovenular anastomosis (LVA) is a promising treatment modality for lymphedema. However, its practice is restricted by the surgeon/equipment-related factors, and its effectiveness limited by technical constraints. We conducted a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of a modified octopus LVA technique in addressing the above problems. MethodNine consecutive lymphedema patients underwent LVA procedure using the octopus technique. Six had the upper extremity disease; three had the lower extremity disease. Except for one patient having primary lower extremity lymphedema, all had secondary disease related to cancer treatment. Disease severity ranged from Campisi stage Ib to IV. Qualitative and quantitative assessments were performed preoperatively, at 1, 3, and 6 months. ResultsA total of 130 lymphaticovenular drainage pathways were created in 39 octopus LVAs. All patients experienced prompt relief of lymphedema symptoms during the 1st postoperative week and continued to improve during the study period. None had postoperative complications. All had disease regression as demonstrated by statistically significant decrease in limb measurements (p=0.0003) and severity down-staging. The modified technique was found to be easier than the standard supermicrosurgical technique and could be performed using a standard surgical microscope. ConclusionThe octopus technique is a viable, effective technical alternative to the standard LVA technique. It may greatly simplify this technically challenging procedure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available