Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2023; 39(03): 214-220
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1755258
Original Article

Risk Factors Associated with Adverse Outcomes after Ablative Surgery for Lymphedema

Annet S. Kuruvilla    *
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stony Brook University, Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook, New York
,
Annie Laurie W. Shroyer   *
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stony Brook University, Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook, New York
,
Xiaoning Li
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stony Brook University, Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook, New York
,
Jie Yang
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stony Brook University, Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook, New York
,
Sagar R. Mulay
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stony Brook University, Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook, New York
,
Sohaib M. Agha
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stony Brook University, Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook, New York
,
Raymond M. Bellis
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stony Brook University, Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook, New York
,
Harmehar K. Kohli
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stony Brook University, Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook, New York
,
Henry J. Tannous   **
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stony Brook University, Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook, New York
,
Aleksandra Krajewski   **
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stony Brook University, Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook, New York
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Postmastectomy breast cancer lymphedema poses an important health threat. Historically, physical therapy was the exclusive treatment option. More recently, lymphedema surgery has revolutionized care. As a first-in-kind, multicenter report, the postmastectomy breast cancer patients' risk factors associated with postlymphedema ablative surgical outcomes were documented.

Methods Using the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database from 2010 to 2018, multivariable models identified the postmastectomy breast cancer lymphedema surgical patients' characteristics associated with major adverse outcomes and mortality.

Results Of 65,543 postmastectomy breast cancer patients, 1,052 lymphedema surgical procedures were performed including 393 (37.4%) direct excisions and 659 (63.6%) liposuctions. Direct excision and liposuction surgical patients had median ages of 58 and 52 years, respectfully (p < 0.001). Although a 30-day operative mortality was rare (0.3%, all direct excisions), major adverse outcomes occurred in 154 patients (28.5% direct excision; 6.4% liposuction; p < 0.0001). Multivariable clinical outcomes model identified that patients with higher Elixhauser's score, renal disease, emergent admissions, and direct excision surgery had higher incidences of adverse outcomes (all p < 0.01). For those patients with 30-day readmissions (n = 60), they were more likely to have undergone direct excision versus liposuction (12.5 vs. 1.7%; p < 0.0001). The important risk factors predictive of future cellulitis/lymphangitis development included diabetes mellitus, Medicaid insurance, renal disease, prior cellulitis/lymphangitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and chronic steroid use (all p < 0.01).

Conclusion Lymphedema surgery carries a favorable risk profile, but better understanding the “high-risk” patients is critical. As this new era of lymphedema surgery progresses, evaluating the characteristics for adverse postoperative outcomes is an important step in our evolution of knowledge.

Keywords

lymphedema - breast cancer - mastectomy - lymphedema surgery - ablative surgery - risk factors

* Both Ms. Kuruvilla and Dr. Shroyer should be considered co-first authors.


** Both Drs. Tannous and Krajewski should be considered co-last authors.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 17 December 2021

Accepted: 29 May 2022

Article published online:
26 September 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Smile TD, Tendulkar R, Schwarz G. et al. A review of treatment for breast cancer-related lymphedema: paradigms for clinical practice. Am J Clin Oncol 2018; 41 (02) 178-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Mureddu GF. Current multivariate risk scores in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis 2017; 87 (02) 848
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Tait RC, Zoberi K, Ferguson M. et al. Persistent post-mastectomy pain: risk factors and current approaches to treatment. J Pain 2018; 19 (12) 1367-1383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Schaverien MV, Coroneos CJ. Surgical treatment of lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 144 (03) 738-758
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Cha HG, Oh TM, Cho MJ. et al. Changing the paradigm: lymphovenous anastomosis in advanced stage lower extremity lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021; 147 (01) 199-207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Brorson H. Liposuction in lymphedema treatment. J Reconstr Microsurg 2016; 32 (01) 56-65
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Greene AK, Maclellan RA. Operative treatment of lymphedema using suction-assisted lipectomy. Ann Plast Surg 2016; 77 (03) 337-340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Forte AJ, Huayllani MT, Boczar D, Ciudad P, McLaughlin SA. Lipoaspiration for the treatment of lower limb lymphedema: a comprehensive systematic review. Cureus 2019; 11 (10) e5913
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg 2014; 12 (12) 1495-1499
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40 (05) 373-383
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care 1998; 36 (01) 8-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Chang HJ, Chen PC, Yang CC, Su YC, Lee CC. Comparison of elixhauser and charlson methods for predicting oral cancer survival. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016; 95 (07) e2861
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P. et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care 2005; 43 (11) 1130-1139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kuhn M, Johnson K. Applied Predictive Modeling. Vol. 26. New York, NY: Springer; 2013
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Wood J, Freemantle N, King M, Nazareth I. Trap of trends to statistical significance: likelihood of near significant P value becoming more significant with extra data. BMJ 2014; 348: g2215-g2215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Johnson AR, Fleishman A, Tran BNN. et al. Developing a lymphatic surgery program: a first-year review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 144 (06) 975e-985e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar