Cargando…

Technical Challenges in “Micro” Lymph Node Identification during Vascularized Submental Lymph Node Flap Harvesting

BACKGROUND: The outcome of autologous lymph node (LN) transfer has depended on the number of LNs in the donor site. Unknown accuracy of the LN counting method has thrown some doubts on the reliability of the previous statistics. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of naked eye (NK) and stereo mi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yodrabum, Nutcha, Patchanee, Krittayot, Oonjitti, Thanaphorn, Piyaman, Parkpoom
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7787339/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33425628
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000003330
_version_ 1783632805663604736
author Yodrabum, Nutcha
Patchanee, Krittayot
Oonjitti, Thanaphorn
Piyaman, Parkpoom
author_facet Yodrabum, Nutcha
Patchanee, Krittayot
Oonjitti, Thanaphorn
Piyaman, Parkpoom
author_sort Yodrabum, Nutcha
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The outcome of autologous lymph node (LN) transfer has depended on the number of LNs in the donor site. Unknown accuracy of the LN counting method has thrown some doubts on the reliability of the previous statistics. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of naked eye (NK) and stereo microscopy (SM) as tools for LN count. METHODS: In total, 40 vascularized submental LN flaps were harvested from 23 fresh cadavers. The colored polymer was injected into the external carotid arteries before the harvest. LNs in each flap were counted by NK, SM, and histology in sequential order. RESULTS: An estimated 175 LNs were confirmed, 4.4 ± 1.8 per flap. NK sensitivity was 33.7% compared with that of SM at 63.5%. Both methods missed all micro-lymph nodes (micro-LNs), contributing to 5.1% (9 nodes) of all LNs. Non-LN structures (647 negative counts) were composed of fat lobules, salivary gland lobules, and muscle fibers. NK specificity was 98.0%, compared with that of SM at 96.1%. SM showed a higher false positive rate at 14.3%, compared with NK at 7.4%. False positive counts were located mostly in Ib sublevel. CONCLUSIONS: NK and SM are imperfect tools for LN count due to poor sensitivity. If the method needs to be applied, points of considerations are (1) undetectable micro-LNs, (2) interposition of LNs with the digastric muscle and submandibular salivary gland, (3) confusion of LNs with lobules of salivary gland supplied by glandular artery or fat lobules supplied by lobular artery.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7787339
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77873392021-01-07 Technical Challenges in “Micro” Lymph Node Identification during Vascularized Submental Lymph Node Flap Harvesting Yodrabum, Nutcha Patchanee, Krittayot Oonjitti, Thanaphorn Piyaman, Parkpoom Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Reconstructive BACKGROUND: The outcome of autologous lymph node (LN) transfer has depended on the number of LNs in the donor site. Unknown accuracy of the LN counting method has thrown some doubts on the reliability of the previous statistics. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of naked eye (NK) and stereo microscopy (SM) as tools for LN count. METHODS: In total, 40 vascularized submental LN flaps were harvested from 23 fresh cadavers. The colored polymer was injected into the external carotid arteries before the harvest. LNs in each flap were counted by NK, SM, and histology in sequential order. RESULTS: An estimated 175 LNs were confirmed, 4.4 ± 1.8 per flap. NK sensitivity was 33.7% compared with that of SM at 63.5%. Both methods missed all micro-lymph nodes (micro-LNs), contributing to 5.1% (9 nodes) of all LNs. Non-LN structures (647 negative counts) were composed of fat lobules, salivary gland lobules, and muscle fibers. NK specificity was 98.0%, compared with that of SM at 96.1%. SM showed a higher false positive rate at 14.3%, compared with NK at 7.4%. False positive counts were located mostly in Ib sublevel. CONCLUSIONS: NK and SM are imperfect tools for LN count due to poor sensitivity. If the method needs to be applied, points of considerations are (1) undetectable micro-LNs, (2) interposition of LNs with the digastric muscle and submandibular salivary gland, (3) confusion of LNs with lobules of salivary gland supplied by glandular artery or fat lobules supplied by lobular artery. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2020-12-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7787339/ /pubmed/33425628 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000003330 Text en Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Reconstructive
Yodrabum, Nutcha
Patchanee, Krittayot
Oonjitti, Thanaphorn
Piyaman, Parkpoom
Technical Challenges in “Micro” Lymph Node Identification during Vascularized Submental Lymph Node Flap Harvesting
title Technical Challenges in “Micro” Lymph Node Identification during Vascularized Submental Lymph Node Flap Harvesting
title_full Technical Challenges in “Micro” Lymph Node Identification during Vascularized Submental Lymph Node Flap Harvesting
title_fullStr Technical Challenges in “Micro” Lymph Node Identification during Vascularized Submental Lymph Node Flap Harvesting
title_full_unstemmed Technical Challenges in “Micro” Lymph Node Identification during Vascularized Submental Lymph Node Flap Harvesting
title_short Technical Challenges in “Micro” Lymph Node Identification during Vascularized Submental Lymph Node Flap Harvesting
title_sort technical challenges in “micro” lymph node identification during vascularized submental lymph node flap harvesting
topic Reconstructive
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7787339/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33425628
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000003330
work_keys_str_mv AT yodrabumnutcha technicalchallengesinmicrolymphnodeidentificationduringvascularizedsubmentallymphnodeflapharvesting
AT patchaneekrittayot technicalchallengesinmicrolymphnodeidentificationduringvascularizedsubmentallymphnodeflapharvesting
AT oonjittithanaphorn technicalchallengesinmicrolymphnodeidentificationduringvascularizedsubmentallymphnodeflapharvesting
AT piyamanparkpoom technicalchallengesinmicrolymphnodeidentificationduringvascularizedsubmentallymphnodeflapharvesting