ReviewJPRAS open2026
"Debulking" the future of lymphedema surgery: A narrative review.
Review in JPRAS open, 2026. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To summarize and contextualize current and future perspectives in the surgical treatment of lymphedema, exploring new techniques and technologies, integrated treatment modalities, and their real-time clinical applications. Background: Lymphedema is a debilitating condition caused by impaired lymphatic flow. It diminishes quality of life (QoL) and often leads to other sequential comorbidities. There is no established cure, and the optimal treatment option remains debated. Understanding current and future surgical approaches, especially the preventive and curative role at early stages, would be valuable. Methods: A literature review was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar, including only high-impact systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials from the past 10 years. Results: Lymphovenous anastomosis, vascularized lymph node transfer, and liposuction were among the most discussed surgical treatment options. Benefits include speedy volume reduction, greater QoL, and better wound healing. Microsurgical techniques greatly aided early-stage lymphedema. Fibrotic, irreversible lymphedema cases were better treated with reductive procedures and improved QoL. On the flip side, we are encountering limitations in standardization, resources, and the need for adjunctive conservative therapy while trying to make surgical treatment the mainstay. Technological advances like imaging and robotics, and future innovations like regenerative medicine show potential, but further high-quality, long-term studies are necessary for standardized, cost-effective, and widely accessible care. Conclusion: Modern surgical treatment for lymphedema offers safer, more effective, and more individualized solutions. To make these procedures a part of mainstream, multidisciplinary care, further development must go into training, standardizing protocols, and making them accessible.
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.