ArticleJPRAS open2025
Immediate lymphatic reconstruction for breast cancer-related lymphedema prevention: A systematic review.
Article in JPRAS open, 2025. 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.
- Lymphovenous Bypass: Past, Present, and Future.Archives of plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Breast cancer related lymphedema (BCRL) is a complication of breast cancer treatment, affecting 10-56% of women who undergo axillary lymph node dissection. Immediate lymphatic reconstruction (ILR) is an emerging intervention to reduce the risk of lymphedema development at the time of axillary lymph node dissection. This study assesses the current body of evidence on ILR, with specific focus on efficacy in preventing breast cancer-related lymphedema, operative technique, and its safety profile. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried for studies on ILR published up to September 30, 2024. Studies involving lymphatic reconstruction after the development of BCRL were excluded. The systematic review identified 18 studies, 16 focusing on BCRL development and 2 focusing on oncologic recurrence outcomes. Of 785 patients receiving ILR, the cumulative BCRL rate was 13.3% with a median follow-up time of 15 months. Of 696 control group patients, the cumulative BCRL rate was 26.1% at a median follow-up time of 14.6 months. BCRL rates were higher in both groups in studies with longer follow-up times. This systematic review revealed an overall relative risk (RR) of 0.51 of developing BCRL in patients receiving ILR after axillary lymph node dissection. The RR was 0.33 in studies with a follow-up duration of fewer than 18 months and 0.60 in those with longer follow-up periods. Newer studies have included longer follow-up times and the inclusion of control groups, allowing for better evaluation of the long-term efficacy of ILR. This study also highlighted areas of focus for future study, including standardization of technique and lymphedema diagnosis, oncologic safety, and patient-reported outcomes.
Indexed as
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.