ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
Randomized Feasibility Study Evaluating Multiple FDA-approved Microbubbles for CEUS Lymphography.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protocol of Noncontrast High-frequency Ultrasound and Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound-guided Lymphatic Mapping for Lymphaticovenous Anastomosis Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- [Research progress on the application of ultrasound technology in the diagnosis and treatment of lymphedema].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2026Review
- Comparative Evaluation of Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound and Indocyanine Green Lymphography for Lymphatic Mapping: A Retrospective Study.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- [An overview of integrated surgical management for secondary lower limb lymphedema guided by algorithms].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2025Article
- Integrated surgical treatment: a new model for treating secondary extremity lymphedema based on algorithms.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prior studies on contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) lymphography for preoperative mapping before lymphaticovenous anastomosis surgery in patients with extremity lymphedema have been limited to using only Lumason and Sonazoid as microbubble contrast agents. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of using two other Food & Drug Administration-approved microbubble agents, Optison and Definity, for imaging lymphatic vessels in the upper extremities. Nine female adults with unilateral upper extremity lymphedema anticipating lymphaticovenous anastomosis surgery underwent CEUS lymphography of the unaffected upper extremity randomized to either Lumason, Definity, or Optison. Lymphatic vessels were visualized in all but one case when undilated Definity was used. In the eight upper extremities where lymphatic vessels were visualized, an average of eight intradermal injections of microbubbles were performed in the extremity. Lymphatic vessels could be identified in 57% (36 of 63) of the injections. The effective dilution for each of the microbubble agents is provided. This was the first successful demonstration of lymphatic vessel visualization using either Definity or Optison. Broadening the range of available microbubble agents for CEUS lymphography could improve accessibility to the procedure and provide potentially safer alternatives.
Identifiers
What 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.