Higher Rate of Lymphedema with Inguinal versus Axillary Complete Lymph Node Dissection for Melanoma: A Potential Target for Immediate Lymphatic Reconstruction?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The present study was conducted to define the lymphedema rate at our institution in patients undergoing axillary (ALND) or inguinal (ILND) lymph node dissection (LND) for melanoma. It aimed to examine risk factors predisposing patients to a higher rate of lymphedema, highlighting which patients could be targeted for immediate lymphatic reconstruction (ILR). Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted between October 2015 and July 2020 to identify patients who had undergone ALND or ILND for melanoma. The main outcome measures were rates of transient and permanent lymphedema. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the relationship between lymphedema rate and factors related to patient characteristics, surgical procedure, pathology findings, and adjuvant treatment. Results: Between October 2015 and July 2020, 66 patients underwent LND for melanoma: 34 patients underwent ALND and 32 patients underwent ILND. At a median follow-up of 29 months, 85.3% (n = 29) of patients having had an ALND did not experience lymphedema, versus 50.0% (n = 16) of ILND (p = 0.0019). The rates of permanent lymphedema for patients having undergone ALND and ILND were 11.8% (n = 4) and 37.5% (n = 12) respectively (p = 0.016, NS). The rate of transient lymphedema was 2.9% (n = 1) for ALND and 12.5% (n = 4) for ILND (p = 0.13, NS). On univariate analysis, the location of LND and wound infection were found to be significant factors for lymphedema. On multivariate analysis, only the location of LND remained a significant predictor, with the inguinal location predisposing to lymphedema. Conclusion: This study highlights the high rate of lymphedema following ILND for melanoma and is a potential target for future patients to be considered for ILR.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".