LAUSR

Background: The purpose of this retrospective study was to describe, evaluate, and compare the outcome between end-to-end and side-to-end lymphaticovenous anastomoses for all stages of lymphedema. Methods: A total of 123 patients were divided into the end-to-end (n = 63) or the side-to-end (n = 60) group. The demographics and intraoperative and postoperative findings were evaluated. In addition, subcategory evaluation was performed for early- and advanced-phase lymphedema. Results: The demographic findings were insignificant. The intraoperative findings showed a significantly higher number of lymphaticovenous anastomoses performed for the end-to-end group (4.1 ± 1.7) over the side-to-end group (3.2 ± 1.2) (p < 0.001), whereas the number of different lymphatic vessels used per patient was not significant (3.4 ± 1.4 versus 3.2 ± 1.2; p = 0.386). The diameter of the lymphatic vessels was not significant (0.43 ± 0.06 mm versus 0.45 ± 0.09 mm; p = 0.136). Although both groups showed significant postoperative volume reduction, the side-to-end group had a significantly better reduction in all time intervals (p < 0.03) and longitudinal outcome (p = 0.004). However, the subcategory evaluation for early-phase patients showed no difference between the two groups, but a significantly better volume reduction ratio was noted for the side-to-end group at all time intervals (p < 0.025) in addition to overall longitudinal outcome (p = 0.004) in advanced lymphedema patients. Conclusions: This is the first study to report the efficacy of end-to-end versus side-to-end lymphaticovenous anastomosis in different phases of lymphedema. Although both end-to-end and side-to-end lymphaticovenous anastomoses are significantly effective in volume reduction, there was a significantly better reduction for the side-to-end group in advanced-phase lymphedema patients with stage II late and stage III disease, whereas no difference was noted for early-phase lymphedema patients. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.