ArticleGland surgery2025
Immediate lymphatic reconstruction (ILR) for prevention of secondary lymphedema after breast cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta‑analysis.
Article in Gland surgery, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The most common chronic complication following breast cancer surgery is breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). Lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA) is a surgical treatment for lymphedema, but it could not cure lymphedema. Immediate lymphatic reconstruction (ILR) has been shown in early studies to reduce the risk of BCRL. The objective of this study is to detail the impact of ILR on the incidence of BCRL and to summarize the current opportunities and challenges of ILR. Methods: We performed a systematic review through September 2024 of the Web of Science, Embase, and PubMed databases. There were cohort studies that documented the incidence of BCRL having undergone ILR. BCRL occurrences between the ILR and no ILR group were compared using a comparative meta-analysis of five studies. Additionally, a single percentage meta-analysis was conducted using 12 papers that documented the events of BCRL after ILR. Results: The 12 papers included all met the criteria for analysis. The incidence of BCRL in the no ILR group was higher than that in the ILR group, according to a comparative meta-analysis, and there was a statistically significant difference [odds ratio (OR): 0.14; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.08-0.24; P<0.001]. Besides, the incidence of BCRL of the IRL group was 8.6% (95% CI: 6-12%), according to a meta-analysis of single percentages. The results of the subgroup analysis showed that follow-up time of less than 1 year or more than 1 year after ILR was not significantly associated with the incidence of BCRL (P=0.40). Conclusions: There is a definite indication that ILR is beneficial in preventing BCRL. This might be a helpful intervention for improving the quality of life of breast cancer survivors.
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.