4.6 Article

Human lymphatic pumping measured in healthy and lymphoedematous arms by lymphatic congestion lymphoscintigraphy

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 583, 期 1, 页码 271-285

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2007.130401

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [063025] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Axillary surgery for breast cancer partially obstructs lymph outflow from the arm, chronically raising the lymphatic smooth muscle afterload. This may lead to pump failure, as in hypertensive cardiac failure, and could explain features of breast cancer treatment-related lymphoedema (BCRL) such as its delayed onset. A new method was developed to measure human lymphatic contractility non-invasively and test the hypothesis of contractile impairment. Tc-99m-human IgG (Tc-HIG), injected into the hand dermis, drained into the arm lymphatic system which was imaged using a gamma-camera. Lymph transit time from hand to axilla, t(transit), Was 9.6 +/- 7.2 min (mean +/- S.D.) (velocity 8.9 cm min(-1)) in seven normal subjects. To assess lymphatic contractility, a sphygmomanometer cuff around the upper arm was inflated to 60 mmHg (P-cuff) before Tc-99m-HIG injection and maintained for >> t(transit). When P-cuff exceeded the maximum pressure generated by the lymphatic pump (P-pump), radiolabelled lymph was held up at the distal cuff border. Pcuff was then lowered in 10 mmHg steps until Tc-99m-HIG began to flow under the P-cuff to the axilla, indicating P-pump >= Pcuff. In 16 normal subjects P-pump was 39 +/- 14 mmHg. Ppump was 38% lower in 16 women with BCRL, namely 24 +/- 19 mmHg (P = 0.014, Student's unpaired t test), and correlated negatively with the degree of swelling (12-56%). Blood radiolabel accumulation proved an unreliable measure of lymphatic pump function. Lymphatic congestion lymphoscintigraphy thus provided a quantitative measure of human lymphatic contractility without surgical cut-down, and the results supported the hypothesis of lymphatic pump failurein BCRL.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据