Gastroepiploic Lymph Node Flap Harvest for Patients With Lymphedema: Minimally Invasive Versus Open Approach.

Abstract

Vascularized gastroepiploic lymph node flaps have become a popular option to treat patients with extremity lymphedema. Overall, 2 surgical approaches to harvest this flap have been described: laparoscopic and open. In this study, we analyzed complications, harvesting time, and patient satisfaction scores, comparing these 2 techniques. Between 2012- and 2018, all patients with extremity lymphedema and candidates for the gastroepiploic flap harvest were included. Two groups were compared: open and laparoscopic approaches. Flap harvest time, postoperative pain, complications, return of gastrointestinal motility, time to discharge, and patient satisfaction scores were assessed. A total of 177 patients were included, of which 126 underwent laparoscopic harvest and 51 patients underwent open approach. Only 2 patients in the laparoscopic group had prior abdominal surgery not related to cancer treatment compared with 7 patients in the open approach (P < 0.01). Average surgical completion time for the laparoscopic versus open approach was 136 and 102 minutes, respectively (P < 0.02). Postoperative complications for the laparoscopic versus open were as follows: 1 patient developed pancreatitis and 2 developed ileus in the laparoscopic approach, whereas 3 patients developed ileus, 1 developed small bowel obstruction, 2 developed superficial site infection, and 1 developed minor wound dehiscence in the open approach. No patient required further surgical intervention. Average return of gastrointestinal function was 1 day (laparoscopic) and 2 days (open), respectively. On a pain scale, pain scores at postoperative day 1 and upon discharge were on average 3 versus 7 and 2 versus 5, respectively (P < 0.05). Lengths of hospital stay were on average 2 days in the laparoscopic group and 5 days in the open group (P < 0.001). Patient satisfaction scores based on pain and scars were significantly better in the laparoscopic group versus open group (P < 0.03). These data support that a minimal invasive approach is ideal and efficient when resources are available. In addition, the lower complication rate and high patient satisfaction scores give promising feedback to continue offering this technique.