Journals / Turkish journal of vascular surgery / 2021 / Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 3

Chronic lower limb lymphedema: A single-center epidemiological study

Pages
214–218
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Chronic LE is a challenging problem with poor quality of life, negative psychosocial effects, and disabling consequences, and it is of vital importance to recognize the disease in its early stages with awareness, diagnosis, and multidisciplinary approach.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: This study aims to analyze patients with chronic lower limb lymphedema (LE) clinically, diagnostically and etiopathogenetically.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Patients and methods: This single-center, retrospective national epidemiological study included a total of 558 patients (161 males, 397 females; median age: 43 years; range, 10 days to 94 years) with chronic lower limb LE who were treated in our department between January 2005 and January 2020.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Chronic LE is a challenging problem with poor quality of life, negative psychosocial effects, and disabling consequences, and it is of vital importance to recognize the disease in its early stages with awareness, diagnosis, and multidisciplinary approach.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2005 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objectives: This study aims to analyze patients with chronic lower limb lymphedema (LE) clinically, diagnostically and etiopathogenetically. Patients and methods: This single-center, retrospective national epidemiological study included a total of 558 patients (161 males, 397 females; median age: 43 years; range, 10 days to 94 years) with chronic lower limb LE who were treated in our department between January 2005 and January 2020. Primary and secondary LE were classified clinically by stage and severity and lymphoscintigraphically. Body mass index was calculated for the detection and classification of obesity. Results: A total of 72.5% of the patients had unilateral lower limb LE, while 27.5% had bilateral LE including lipolymphedema. The rate of the patients with obesity and pre-obesity was 71.2%. Primary LE patients (54.1%) were more common than those with secondary LE. The rates of clinical, clinical severity, and lymphoscintigraphic staging were 11.1%, 38%, and 28%, respectively for Stage I, 55.2%, 30.9%, and 42%, respectively for Stage II, and 33.7%, 31.1%, and 17%, respectively for Stage III. Complications were elephantiasis (13.3%), elephantiasis nostras verrucosa (3.0%), cellulitis (22.1%), erysipelas (2.3%), ulcer (2.6%), onychomycosis (27.4%), and lymphangiosarcoma (0.2%). Conclusion: Chronic LE is a challenging problem with poor quality of life, negative psychosocial effects, and disabling consequences, and it is of vital importance to recognize the disease in its early stages with awareness, diagnosis, and multidisciplinary approach.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZMEN, R., ATABEY, R. D. (2021). Chronic lower limb lymphedema: A single-center epidemiological study. Turkish journal of vascular surgery, Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 3, 214–218. https://ajindex.com/articles/404260

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Keeley V, Moffat C. Lymphedema epidemiology. In: Lee BB, Rockson SG, Bergan J editors. Lymphedema. 2nd ed. London: Springer International Publishing AG; 2018. p. 165-76
  2. Keast DH, Despatis M, Allen JO, Brassard A. Chronic oedema/lymphoedema: Under-recognised and undertreated. Int Wound J 2015;12:328-33
  3. Akçalı Y. Giriş: Gizemden kılavuzlara: 400 yıllık bilimsel yolculuk. Turkiye Klinikleri J Cardiovasc Surg-Special Topics 2018;10:1-9
  4. Moffatt CJ, Franks PJ, Doherty DC, Williams AF, Badger C, Jeffs E, et al. Lymphoedema: An underestimated health problem. Q JM 2003;96:731-8
  5. Rockson SG, Rivera KK. Estimating the population burden of lymphedema. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2008;1131:147-54
  6. Smeltzer DM, Stickler GB, Schirger A. Primary lymphedema in children and adolescents: A follow-up study and review. Pediatrics 1985;76:206-18
  7. Williams AE, Bergl S, Twycross RG. A 5-year review of a lymphoedema service. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 1996;5:56-9
  8. Schook CC, Mulliken JB, Fishman SJ, Grant FD, Zurakowski D, Greene AK. Primary lymphedema: Clinical features and management in 138 pediatric patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;127:2419-31
  9. Greene AK. Epidemiology and morbidity of lymphedema. In: Greene AK, Slavin SA, Brorson H, editors. Lymphedema: Presentation, Diagnosis, and Treatment. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 33-44
  10. Farrow W. Phlebolymphedema-a common underdiagnosed and undertreated problem in the wound care clinic. J Am Col Certif Wound Spec 2010;2:14-23
  11. Rabe E, Pannier F. Clinical, Aetiological, Anatomical and Pathological Classification (CEAP): Gold standard and limits. Phlebology 2012;27 Suppl 1:114-8
  12. Akcali Y. Doğumsal vasküler malformasyonlar. In: Polat A, Akay T, Koksal C, Bozkurt AK, editörler. Damar. İstanbul: Bayçınar Tıbbi Yayıncılık; 2019. s. 956-78
  13. Executive Committee of the International Society of Lymphology. The diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema: 2020 consensus document of the International Society of Lymphology. Lymphology 2020;53:3-19
  14. Lee BB, Bergan JJ. New clinical and laboratory staging systems to improve management of chronic lymphedema. Lymphology 2005;38:122-9
  15. Bernas M. Assessment and risk reduction in lymphedema. Semin Oncol Nurs 2013;29:12-9
  16. Rooke TW, Felty CL. Lymphedema: Pathophysiology, classification, and clinical evaluation. In: Gloviczki P, Dalsing MC, Eklöf B, Lurie F, Wakefield TW, Gloviczki ML, editors. Handbook of Venous and Lymphatic Di