Home > Journals > International Angiology > Past Issues > International Angiology 2019 August;38(4) > International Angiology 2019 August;38(4):334-42

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as
Share

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE  MISCELLANEOUS Editor’s choice • Freefree

International Angiology 2019 August;38(4):334-42

DOI: 10.23736/S0392-9590.19.04176-2

Copyright © 2019 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Upper limb secondary lymphedema ultrasound mapping and characterization

Antonio MANDER 1, Salvatore VENOSI 2, Erica MENEGATTI 3, Lee BYUNG-BOONG 4, 5, Diana NEUHARDT 6, Elisa MAIETTI 7, 8, Sergio GIANESINI 3, 5

1 Unit of Oncologic and Vascular Rehabilitation, Vaclav Vojta Center, Rome, Italy; 2 Unit of Vascular Surgery, Paride Stefanini Department, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy; 3 Unit of Translational Surgery, Vascular Disease Center, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy; 4 George Washington University, Washington DC, USA; 5 Department of Surgery, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA; 6 Comprehensive Interventional Care Center, Gilbert, AZ, USA; 7 Department of Medical Sciences, Center for Clinical Epidemiology, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy; 8 Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy



BACKGROUND: Ultrasound investigation potentials in lymphedema are still to be fully used in everyday practice. Aim of the present study was to report the sonographic characterization of the dermo-epidermal complex (DEC) and of the subcutaneous (SUBC) tissue, assessing the feasibility of a related mapping, in upper limb secondary lymphedema.
METHODS: In this retrospective study 287 patients affected by monolateral upper limb post-mastectomy lymphedema (M5/F282; mean age 64±4.24) were enrolled and scanned by ultrasound, considering the healthy contralateral limb as control. In order to standardize the assessment, the limb was divided in sectors: 4 anterior, 4 posterior below the elbow, 4 anterior and 4 posterior above the elbow, plus the hand. DEC and SUBC regions B-mode appearance were reported, both in the healthy and in the pathological arms. DEC thickness was measured and compared among the same sectors of the healthy and pathological limbs.
RESULTS: DEC and SUBC sonographic appearance was differentiated in fluid and sclerotic. DEC included a third category characterized by differentiation loss. The different sectors showed significantly different lymphatic involvement in the affected limb. In the comparison with the contralateral unaffected segments a significantly thicker DEC was reported in the forearm affected by lymphedema (P<0.005), while no significant difference was reported at the arm level.
CONCLUSIONS: Traditional ultrasonography can provide a secondary upper limb lymphedema characterization with related mapping and useful data for a better lymphatic physiopathology understanding and for a properly addressed therapeutic protocol.


KEY WORDS: Ultrasonography; Lymphedema; Upper extremity

top of page