Occurrence of Lymphedema Following Sentinel Node Biopsy (SNB) for Lower Extremity Melanoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : The benefits of sentinel node biopsy for melanoma are well established, while the risks have received less attention. This study was undertaken to establish the incidence of lower extremity lymphedema following inguinal SNB and to identify risk factors predictive for the development of lymphedema. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients undergoing SNB at our institution between January 2000 and December 2007. Sixty-five patients were identified who had a lower extremity melanoma and underwent inguinal SNB in the absence of a completion lymph node dissection. After a minimum one year of follow-up, all patients were surveyed regarding their qualitative assessment of lymphedema. Results: Forty patients returned surveys and are the subject of this study. Fourteen of 40 patients (35%) reported experiencing post-operative lymphedema, with 9 patients (23%) having lymphedema that persisted for more than 1 year. The onset occurred within 1 month of surgery in 8 patients (25%). Lymphedema was described as minimal or mild by 13 patients and severe by 1 patient. Lymphedema requiring support stocking use was reported by 10 patients (25%). An increased incidence of post-operative lymphedema was found to be associated with primary tumors located on the lower leg or foot. Conclusions: Fourteen patients (35%) undergoing inguinal SNB experienced post-operative lymphedema, with 9 patients (23%) having persistent lymphedema for more than 1 year. These numbers are higher than in previously reported series. Location of the melanoma on the lower leg or foot appeared to be a significant risk factor. doi:10.4021/jcs33w
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".