ArticleEuropean journal of breast health2026
Simplified LYMPHA for Prevention of Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema After Axillary Dissection: Initial Feasibility Experience from South Asia.
Article in European journal of breast health, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Breast cancer-related lymphedema is an important survivorship concern after axillary lymph node dissection. Conventional LYMPHA and immediate lymphatic reconstruction can reduce this risk, but adoption in low- and middle-income settings is limited by the need for microsurgical personnel, equipment, additional operating time, and cost. This study reports an initial feasibility assessment of simplified LYMPHA (S-LYMPHA) performed by breast surgical oncologists using indocyanine green guidance. Materials and Methods: This was a prospective, single-arm feasibility cohort study. Consecutive eligible patients undergoing planned axillary lymph node dissection or completion axillary dissection after a positive intraoperative sentinel node assessment were enrolled from July 2024 to September 2025. Arm circumferences were measured preoperatively and at 3 and 6 months, at three fixed points. After confirmation that axillary dissection was required, methylene blue and indocyanine green were injected into the ipsilateral upper limb. Arm lymphatics were identified, preserved, and invaginated into a suitable axillary venous tributary after nodal dissection. The primary outcomes of this interim report were technical feasibility, short-term safety, and clinical lymphedema at 6 months. Results: Thirty-seven patients underwent attempted S-LYMPHA. The median age was 51 years. Nineteen patients (51.4%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and 26 patients (70.3%) underwent mastectomy. Sixteen patients (43.2%) required axillary dissection after nodal metastasis was detected on intraoperative sentinel node assessment. Arm lymphatics were identified in all patients. The mean number of lymphatics identified was 2.6 (range 1-5), and the mean number of lymphovenous anastomoses created was 1.5 (range 1-3). More than one anastomosis was performed in 16 (43.2%) patients. At a uniform 6-month follow-up, one patient had clinical lymphedema, corresponding to an observed incidence of 2.7% (exact 95% confidence interval, 0.07-14.16). No dye-related adverse reaction or local complication attributable to the lymphatic reconstruction was observed. Conclusion: S-LYMPHA was technically feasible and safe in this initial South Asian feasibility cohort. These early data should be interpreted as evidence of implementability and short-term safety rather than proof of lymphedema prevention. Larger comparative cohorts with longer follow-up are required to define efficacy, durability, and oncologic safety.
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.