Axilla versus Wrist as the Recipient Site in Vascularized Lymph Node Transfer for Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vascularized lymph node transfers (VLNT) are being used with increasing frequency for the treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). However, there is a lack of consensus in the surgical field as to which recipient site should be utilized. We, therefore, aim to assess the evidence comparing the wrist and axilla as recipient sites for VLNT in BCRL. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review to compare the wrist and axilla as recipient sites for VLNT in BCRL. Demographic data, as well as circumference reduction rate (CRR), excess volume reduction (EVR), postoperative decrease in infections per year, postoperative discontinuation of compression garments, and overall pooled complication rate were extracted from included studies. These were compared through a meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 37 studies met the inclusion criteria for a total of 689 patients. VLNTs to the wrist and axilla resulted in a decrease in CRR of 42.1 and 51.5%, and a decrease in EVR of 35.6 and 48.8%, respectively. However, our meta-analysis showed no significant differences between CRR or EVR and between wrist and axilla as recipient sites. Similarly, we found no differences in postoperative decrease in infections per year, postoperative discontinuation of compression garments, and overall pooled complication rate. CONCLUSION: These data suggest noninferiority between the wrist and axilla as recipient sites for VLNT in the context of BCRL. In the absence of randomized, prospective data, we hope these results can be used as an evidence-based reference and facilitate future studies.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it