A Prospective Study of the Impact of Lymphatic Venous Anastomosis as a Treatment for Lymphedema
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Lymphedema is managed using conservative modalities, which are most effective in early stages. Surgical interventions, such as lymphaticovenous anastomosis (LVA), are becoming popular as a method to augment conservative modalities. Despite a growing body of evidence demonstrating surgical effectiveness, prospective studies using validated measures and patient-reported outcomes are needed to further evaluate the impact of LVA. This prospective study evaluated the effect of LVA on limb volume, quality of life, and psychosocial well-being. Methods: Adults with stage 1–2 lymphedema undergoing LVA between January 2020 and December 2023 were included. All participants underwent 2 weeks of preoperative bandaging followed by lymphaticovenous anastomoses. Postoperative bandaging was administered for 6 weeks. Excess limb volume, lymphedema-specific quality of life, generalized anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-8), and lymphedema symptom intensity and distress were measured preoperatively and 6 weeks postoperatively. Qualitative semistructured interviews were also undertaken to contextualize findings. Results: Quantitative results indicated a modest reduction in percentage excess limb volume (median [interquartile range IQR], −4.40% [IQR, −12.20% to −1.50%], P = 0.0015). There were no significant differences in psychosocial well-being scores relative to baseline. Significant improvements in overall quality of life scores were noted (lymphedema-specific quality of life median [IQR], 2.00 [IQR, 1.00–3.00], P = 0.0022). Qualitative findings suggested improvements in physical, functional, and psychosocial domains. Conclusions: Our findings indicated modest improvements in percentage excess limb volume and overall quality of life after LVA. We therefore outlined several practice recommendations for the surgical care of lymphedema to improve surgical and postoperative management.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".