Identification of Potential Factors Associated with Cellulitis Following Lymphovenous Bypass Surgery in Breast Cancer Survivors

Abstract

Background Breast cancer is one of the most common types of cancer, with around 2.3 million cases diagnosed in 2020. One in five cancer patients develops chronic lymphedema caused by multifactorial triggers and treatment-related factors. This can lead to swelling, skin infections, and limb dysfunction, negatively affecting the patient's quality of life. This retrospective cohort study aimed to determine the associations between demographic and breast cancer characteristics and postoperative cellulitis in breast cancer survivors who underwent lymphovenous bypass surgery (LVB) at Mayo Clinic, Florida.

Methods We performed a retrospective chart review. Data were collected retrospectively from 2016 to 2022. Sixty adult breast cancer survivors who underwent LVB were included in the final analysis based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were excluded if they did not meet the inclusion criteria or had incomplete follow-up data. Demographic and surgical data were extracted, including body mass index (BMI), type of anastomosis, number of anastomoses, and preoperative cellulitis status. Lymphedema measurements were performed using tape measurements. Fisher's exact test was used to determine statistically significant associations between variables and postoperative cellulitis.

Results Postoperative cellulitis was more common in patients aged 60 to 69 years (43.2%), whites (75.0%), overweight or obese (90.9%), with one to four anastomoses (81.8%), and nonsmokers (79.5%). The mean International Society of Lymphology (ISL) criteria for both postoperative cellulitis and no postoperative cellulitis was 1.93. Statistically significant associations with postoperative cellulitis were found for the number of anastomoses (p = 0.021), smoking status (p = 0.049), preoperative cellulitis (p = 0.04), and the length of years with lymphedema diagnosis variable (p = 0.004).

Conclusion Our results suggest that a greater number of anastomoses, smoking, preoperative cellulitis, and years with lymphedema are significantly associated with an increased risk of postoperative cellulitis. Awareness of these risk factors is crucial for monitoring and early treatment of infections following surgery.

Keywords

lymphovenous bypass - postoperative complications - breast cancer - breast cancer lymphedema - plastic surgery

• References

• 1 Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL. et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71 (03) 209-249
• 2 Kedar DJ, Yanko R, Barnea Y, Inbal A, Fliss E, Zaretski A. Breast cancer-related lymphedema: incidence and risk factors, preventive measures and treatments. Harefuah 2022; 161 (02) 115-120
• 3 DiSipio T, Rye S, Newman B, Hayes S. Incidence of unilateral arm lymphoedema after breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14 (06) 500-515
• 4 Shen A, Lu Q, Fu X. et al. Risk factors of unilateral breast cancer-related lymphedema: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 84 cohort studies. Support Care Cancer 2022; 31 (01) 18
• 5 Rebegea L, Firescu D, Dumitru M, Anghel R. The incidence and risk factors for occurrence of arm lymphedema after treatment of breast cancer. Chirurgia (Bucur) 2015; 110 (01) 33-37
• 6 Hutchison NA. Diagnosis and treatment of edema and lymphedema in the cancer patient. Rehabil Nurs 2018; 43 (04) 229-242
• 7 Yang EJ, Kim SY, Lee WH, Lim JY, Lee J. Diagnostic accuracy of clinical measures considering segmental tissue composition and volume changes of breast cancer-related lymphedema. Lymphat Res Biol 2018; 16 (04) 368-376
• 8 Maita K, Garcia JP, Torres RA. et al. Imaging biomarkers for diagnosis and treatment response in patients with lymphedema. Biomarkers Med 2022; 16 (04) 303-316
• 9 Maldonado AA, Ramos E, García-Alonso P. et al. Multidisciplinary approach in the lymphedema patient: from rehabilitation to microsurgery. Rehabilitacion (Madr) 2022; 56 (02) 150-158
• 10 Pappalardo M, Starnoni M, Franceschini G, Baccarani A, De Santis G. Breast cancer-related lymphedema: recent updates on diagnosis, severity and available treatments. J Pers Med 2021; 11 (05) 402
• 11 Liu HL, Pang SY, Lee CC, Wong MM, Chung HP, Chan YW. Orthotopic transfer of vascularized groin lymph node flap in the treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema: clinical results, lymphoscintigraphy findings, and proposed mechanism. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2018; 71 (07) 1033-1040
• 12 Giacalone G, Yamamoto T, Belva F, Wets R, Hayashi A, Koshima I. Successful treatment of breast cancer-related breast lymphedema by lymphovenous anastomosis in a male patient. Microsurgery 2019; 39 (04) 360-363
• 13 Giacalone G, Yamamoto T. Supermicrosurgical lymphaticovenous anastomosis for a patient with breast lymphedema secondary to breast cancer treatment. Microsurgery 2017; 37 (06) 680-683
• 14 Scaglioni MF, Meroni M, Fritsche E. Lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA) for treatment of secondary breast lymphedema: a case report and literature review. Microsurgery 2021; 41 (02) 165-169
• 15 Basta MN, Gao LL, Wu LC. Operative treatment of peripheral lymphedema: a systematic meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of lymphovenous microsurgery and tissue transplantation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133 (04) 905-913
• 16 Kong X, Du J, Du X, Cong X, Zhao Q. A meta-analysis of 37 studies on the effectiveness of microsurgical techniques for lymphedema. Ann Vasc Surg 2022; 86: 440-451.e6
• 17 Gasteratos K, Morsi-Yeroyannis A, Vlachopoulos NC, Spyropoulou GA, Del Corral G, Chaiyasate K. Microsurgical techniques in the treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema: a systematic review of efficacy and patient outcomes. Breast Cancer 2021; 28 (05) 1002-1015
• 18 Engel H, Lin CY, Huang JJ, Cheng MH. Outcomes of lymphedema microsurgery for breast cancer-related lymphedema with or without microvascular breast reconstruction. Ann Surg 2018; 268 (06) 1076-1083
• 19 Ciudad P, Escandón JM, Manrique OJ, Bustos VP. Lessons learnt from an 11-year experience with lymphatic surgery and a systematic review of reported complications: technical considerations to reduce morbidity. Arch Plast Surg 2022; 49 (02) 227-239
• 20 Scaglioni MF, Meroni M, Fritsche E. Lymphaticovenous anastomosis (LVA) for breast cancer-related lymphedema treatment. Transl Cancer Res 2020; 9 (05) 3167-3171
• 21 Wolfs JAGN, de Joode LGEH, van der Hulst RRWJ, Qiu SS. Correlation between patency and clinical improvement after lymphaticovenous anastomosis (LVA) in breast cancer-related lymphedema: 12-month follow-up. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2020; 179 (01) 131-138
• 22 Cornelissen AJM, Kool M, Lopez Penha TR. et al. Lymphatico-venous anastomosis as treatment for breast cancer-related lymphedema: a prospective study on quality of life. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017; 163 (02) 281-286
• 23 Bevilacqua JL, Kattan MW, Changhong Y. et al. Nomograms for predicting the risk of arm lymphedema after axillary dissection in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2012; 19 (08) 2580-2589
• 24 Casley-Smith JR. Measuring and representing peripheral oedema and its alterations. Lymphology 1994; 27 (02) 56-70
• 25 Dupuy A, Benchikhi H, Roujeau J-C. et al. Risk factors for erysipelas of the leg (cellulitis): case-control study. BMJ 1999; 318 (7198) 1591-1594
• 26 Quirke M, Ayoub F, McCabe A. et al. Risk factors for nonpurulent leg cellulitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Dermatol 2017; 177 (02) 382-394
• 27 Raff AB, Kroshinsky D. Cellulitis: a review. JAMA 2016; 316 (03) 325-337
• 28 Scaglioni MF, Fontein DBY, Arvanitakis M, Giovanoli P. Systematic review of lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA) for the treatment of lymphedema. Microsurgery 2017; 37 (08) 947-953
• 29 Salgarello M, Mangialardi ML, Pino V, Gentileschi S, Visconti G. A prospective evaluation of health-related quality of life following lymphaticovenular anastomosis for upper and lower extremities lymphedema. J Reconstr Microsurg 2018; 34 (09) 701-707
• 30 Pereira N, Lee YH, Suh Y. et al. Cumulative experience in lymphovenous anastomosis for lymphedema treatment: the learning curve effect on the overall outcome. J Reconstr Microsurg 2018; 34 (09) 735-741
• 31 Mihara M, Hara H, Furniss D. et al. Lymphaticovenular anastomosis to prevent cellulitis associated with lymphoedema. Br J Surg 2014; 101 (11) 1391-1396
• 32 AlJindan FK, Lin CY, Cheng MH. Comparison of outcomes between side-to-end and end-to-end lymphovenous anastomoses for early-grade extremity lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 144 (02) 486-496
• 33 Varagur K, Shetty AS, Saoud K. et al. Association between bioimpedance spectroscopy and magnetic resonance lymphangiography in the diagnosis and assessment of lymphedema. J Reconstr Microsurg 2024; 40 (03) 177-185
• 34 Jiang C, Chen Q, Xie M. Smoking increases the risk of infectious diseases: a narrative review. Tob Induc Dis 2020; 18: 60
• 35 Soo JK, Bicanic TA, Heenan S, Mortimer PS. Lymphatic abnormalities demonstrated by lymphoscintigraphy after lower limb cellulitis. Br J Dermatol 2008; 158 (06) 1350-1353
• 36 Webb E, Neeman T, Bowden FJ, Gaida J, Mumford V, Bissett B. Compression therapy to prevent recurrent cellulitis of the leg. N Engl J Med 2020; 383 (07) 630-639
• 37 Kuruvilla AS, Shroyer ALW, Li X. et al. Risk factors associated with adverse outcomes after ablative surgery for lymphedema. J Reconstr Microsurg 2023; 39 (03) 214-220
• 38 McNeely ML, Binkley JM, Pusic AL, Campbell KL, Gabram S, Soballe PW. A prospective model of care for breast cancer rehabilitation: postoperative and postreconstructive issues. Cancer 2012; 118 (08) 2226-2236