ReviewJournal of clinical and translational research2022
Animal models in lymph node transfer surgery: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of clinical and translational research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Sex, Anesthesia Method, Physiological Asymmetry, and Strain on Rat Lymphatic Vessel Contractility Assessed via Near-Infrared Spectroscopy and Linear Mixed-Effects Modeling.Microcirculation (New York, N.Y. : 1994) · 2026Article
- Therapeutic Lymphangiogenesis Is a Promising Strategy for Secondary Lymphedema.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: Lymph node transfer surgery (LNTS) is indicated in secondary lymphedema (LE) patients who do not respond to conservative therapy. Animal models are the spearhead of LE research and were used to pioneer most of the surgical interventions currently in practice. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to explore animal models dedicated to LNTS to compare different species, techniques, and outcomes. Methods: Four databases were searched: PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus, and Web of Science. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis as our basis of organization. Results: Avascular lymph node graft (ALNG) and vascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT) effectively treated LE and lead to better outcomes than controls. Whole ALNGs are superior to fragmented ALNGs. Larger fragments are more likely to be reintegrated into the lymphatic system than small fragments. VLNT was superior to whole and fragmented ALNG. Increasing the number of VLNT resulted in better outcomes. Adipose-derived stem cells improved outcomes of VLNT; vascular endothelial growth factor C and D and platelet-rich plasma improved outcomes for ALNG. Cryopreservation of lymph nodes (LNs) did not affect outcomes for ALNG. The critical ischemia and venous occlusion time for LN flaps were 4-5 and 4 h, respectively. The critical time for reperfusion injury was 2 h. Some of the novel models included venous LNT, and cervical adipocutaneous flap to groin. Conclusion: Current evidence from animals favors VLNT over other surgical interventions. Several pharmacological therapies significantly improved outcomes of ALNG and VLNT. Relevance to Patients: LE is a chronic condition affecting millions of patients worldwide. LNTS is becoming more popular as a LE treatment. Animal models have led the LE research for decades and developing new models for LE are essential for LE research. This systematic review aims to summarize the existing animal models dedicated to LNTS. We believe that this review is critical to guide researchers in the selection of the model that is best fit for their hypothesis-driven experiments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35813893PMC9260349What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.