A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Efficacy of Immediate Lymphatic Reconstruction in Prevention of Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: Immediate lymphatic reconstruction (ILR) is a technique in which lymphatics are visualized and lymphovenous bypass is done at the time of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) to prevent breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). This meta-analysis estimates the benefit of ILR in preventing lymphedema by incorporating double- and single-arm studies and stratifying by length of follow-up time.

Methods: Three databases were queried for studies with primary data on ILR. Both double- and single-armed studies were included, and papers with small sample sizes, overlapping samples, and unreported data were excluded. Treatment effects were calculated with risk ratios and converted to a logarithmic scale. A meta-analysis was performed using the inverse variance method and a random-effects model, with further analysis done by study design and length of follow-up time.

Results: A total of 17 studies were included (9 double-arm and 8 single-arm; n = 2607). The pooled treatment effect of ILR, expressed as log risk ratio (95% CI), was -0.89 (-1.18, -0.60; p < 0.0001). This corresponds to a relative risk of 0.41 (0.31, 0.55) and a number needed to treat of 9. Double- and single-arm studies showed no significant differences in effect sizes. Studies with < 1-year follow-up demonstrated a larger effect size than those with longer follow-up, and the benefits of ILR were no longer significant past 3 years.

Conclusion: Patients receiving ILR were significantly less likely to develop BCRL than those receiving ALND alone. Further work is needed to examine whether benefits can truly be sustained long-term.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12381909PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/micr.70109DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

lymphatic reconstruction
8
breast cancer-related
8
cancer-related lymphedema
8
length follow-up
8
studies included
8
efficacy lymphatic
4
reconstruction prevention
4
prevention breast
4
lymphedema systematic
4
systematic review
4

Similar Publications