ArticleArchives of plastic surgery2026
Lymphovenous Bypass: Past, Present, and Future.
Article in Archives of plastic surgery, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lymphovenous bypass (LVB) has evolved from an experimental concept to a widely adopted microsurgical intervention for secondary lymphedema. Advances in imaging, surgical technique, and understanding of lymphatic anatomy have expanded its indications, yet its long-term efficacy and ideal application remain incompletely defined. This review examines the historical development, anatomic foundations, and physiologic principles underlying lymphovenous anastomosis. Key topics include the influence of patient-specific lymphatic anatomy and lymphangiogenesis on surgical outcomes, the rheological determinants of lymphatic-venous flow, and evolving techniques such as immediate lymphatic reconstruction (ILR). Both objective and patient-reported outcome (PROM) data are critically appraised, and persisting gaps in knowledge are identified. Emerging evidence demonstrates that lymphangiogenesis and collateral formation after lymphatic injury are highly variable and strongly influence both the development of lymphedema and the success of LVB. Rheological analysis highlights the exponential impact of vessel diameter and flow resistance on anastomotic performance. While LVB yields modest objective limb volume reductions (6-33%), consistent improvements in quality of life and symptom burden are observed. Evidence supporting ILR suggests short-term benefit in reducing lymphedema incidence, though longer-term follow-up indicates attenuation of this effect. LVB represents a mature and evidence-supported component of reconstructive microsurgery, yet substantial heterogeneity persists in patient selection, technical execution, and outcome evaluation. Future progress will depend on integrating precision imaging, standardized outcome measures, and deeper understanding of lymphatic biology to enable personalized, anatomy-driven interventions that restore physiologic lymphatic function.
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.