Proximal vs. Recipient Site for Vascular Lymph Node Transfers for Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Despite the popularity of vascularized lymph node transfers (VLNTs) for treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL), the comparative effectiveness of VLNT placement locations is unknown. In this meta-analysis, we examined the impact of VLNT recipient site (proximal vs. distal vs. dual) and adjunct surgical techniques, including scar release, supercharging, and intervention timing on patient outcomes. Methods: PRISMA-guided search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase (January 2015–March 2025). Patient outcomes including limb circumference/volume reduction, cellulitis frequency, compression garment discontinuation, and patient satisfaction were analyzed. Subgroup analyses assessed node placement, scar release, supercharging, and timing. Results: A total of 1440 patients were analyzed (proximal 63.8%; distal 29.2%; dual 7.0%). No significant differences in mean volume/circumference reductions, patient satisfaction rates, and compression garment discontinuation were observed amongst placement strategies (p > 0.30). Adjunct scar release (65%) was associated with significantly greater patient satisfaction (p = 0.04) and showed trends toward improved volume reduction and compression discontinuation. Earlier intervention (<5 years from diagnosis) showed improved volume reduction, patient satisfaction, and compression discontinuation. Longitudinal analysis revealed dual placement maintained superiority throughout a 12-month follow-up. Conclusions: VLNT is an effective treatment for BCRL regardless of placement location, with all strategies demonstrating substantial clinical improvements. While dual placement showed numerically superior outcomes across all measures, differences did not reach statistical significance due to limited number of studies. Adjunct scar release significantly improves patient satisfaction, and earlier intervention may optimize outcomes. These findings suggest that recipient site selection may be guided by technical factors, vessel availability, and patient preference rather than efficacy differences.
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 | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.033 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".