ArticlePloS one2025
Application of percutaneous lymphatic contrast-enhanced ultrasound in lymphovenous anastomosis microsurgery.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluated percutaneous lymphatic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for preoperative localization in preparation for lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA) microsurgery.
methodsFourteen healthy volunteers and 14 patients with lower limb lymphoedema were studied. SonoVue® (Bracco, Milan, Italy) was used to measure lymphatic vessel diameters and depths in the dorsal foot, ankle, and lower leg of the subjects. In the lymphoedema patients, lymphatic vessels were observed for continuity, distortion, dilation, interruption, and other abnormalities. On the basis of the CEUS images, the lower limb lymphatic vessels were categorized as normal, dilated, contracted, or sclerotic. In the lymphoedema patients, the locations of lymphatic vessels with good visibility were marked on the skin, and the accuracy of preoperative localization was evaluated based on the basis of surgical results. The data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics27.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Continuous data are expressed as the means ± standard deviations and were compared using paired t-tests, with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant.
resultsAmong the healthy volunteers, one had a 1-2 mm lymphatic vessel visible in the dorsal foot, whereas 13 had no lymphatic vessels visible in the dorsal foot; however, lymphatic vessels were visible in the ankle and lower leg in all volunteers, with an average diameter of 0.42 ± 0.09 mm, resulting in a 100% visualization success rate. In lymphoedema patients, CEUS achieved a 92.86% success rate (13/14) in visualizing lymphatic vessels within 1 minute in lymphedema patients, excluding one patient with primary lymphoedema; the average vessel diameter was 0.66 ± 0.24 mm. The most common type consisted of dilated lymphatic vessels with tortuous morphology and increased diameter, often accompanied by reflux and interstitial dispersion in lymphoedema patients. With the successful intraoperative identification of lymphatic vessels under the surface marking during LVA as the standard, the accuracy of preoperative lymphatic vessel localization by CEUS was 92.36%.
conclusionCEUS can accurately localize functional lymphatic vessels and serves as a valuable complementary method to indocyanine green for preoperative lymphatic vessel mapping in LVA.
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.