Your search
Results 3 resources
-
Background/objectives Patients with obesity and lipedema commonly are misdiagnosed as having lymphedema. The conditions share phenotypic overlap and can influence each other. The purpose of this study was to delineate obesity-induced lymphedema, obesity without lymphedema, and lipedema in order to improve their diagnosis and treatment. Subjects/methods Our Lymphedema Center database of 700 patients was searched for patients with obesity-induced lymphedema (OIL), obesity without lymphedema (OWL), and lipedema. Patient age, sex, diagnosis, cellulitis history, body mass index (BMI), and treatment were recorded. Only subjects with lymphoscintigraphic documentation of their lymphatic function were included. Results Ninety-eight patients met inclusion criteria. Subjects with abnormal lymphatic function (n = 46) had a greater BMI (65 ± 12) and cellulitis history (n = 30, 65%) compared to individuals with normal lymphatic function [(BMI 42 ± 10); (cellulitis n = 8, 15%)] (p < 0.001). Seventeen patients had a history of lipedema and two exhibited abnormal lymphatic function (BMI 45, 54). The risk of having lower extremity lymphedema was predicted by BMI: BMI < 40 (0%), 40–49 (17%), 50–59 (63%), 60–69 (86%), 70–79 (91%), ≥80 (100%). Five patients with OIL (11%) underwent resection of massive localized lymphedema (MLL) or suction-assisted lipectomy. Three individuals (18%) with lipedema were treated with suction-assisted lipectomy. Conclusions The risk of lymphedema in patients with obesity and lipedema can be predicted by BMI; confirmation requires lymphoscintigraphy. Individuals with OIL are at risk for cellulitis and MLL. Patients with a BMI > 40 are first managed with weight loss. Excisional procedures can further reduce extremity size once BMI has been lowered.
-
Background: Lymphedema results from inadequate lymphatic function due to failure of lymphatic development or injury to a functioning lymphatic system. Patients suffer enlargement of the affected area, psychosocial morbidity, infection, and functional disability. The purpose of this study was to characterize the disease in a cohort of patients referred to a specialized center. Methods and Results: Our Lymphedema Program database was reviewed for all referrals between 2009 and 2019. Diagnosis was determined based on history, physical examination, and lymphoscintigraphy. Lymphedema type (primary, secondary, and obesity-induced), location of swelling, morbidity, previous management, accuracy of referral diagnosis, the geographic origin of the patients, and treatment in our center were analyzed. Seven hundred patients were referred with a diagnosis of "lymphedema"; 71% were female and 38% were children. Lymphedema was confirmed in 71% of the cohort: primary (62%), secondary (22%), and obesity-induced (16%). Twenty-nine percent of individuals labeled with "lymphedema" had another condition. One-half of patients had not received treatment, and 36% resided outside of our local referral area. One-third of subjects with lymphedema had an infection and 30% had >1 visit to the center. Patients with confirmed lymphedema were managed with compression stockings (100%), pneumatic compression (69%), and/or an excisional procedure (6%). Conclusions: Patients with lymphedema typically are adequately managed with conservative compression therapies and rarely require excisional operations. Diagnostic confusion is common and individuals with possible lymphedema are best managed by physicians focused on the disease.
-
BACKGROUND: There are many causes for a large lower limb in the pediatric age group. These children are often mislabeled as having lymphedema, and incorrect diagnosis can lead to improper treatment. The purpose of this study was to determine the differential diagnosis in pediatric patients referred for lower extremity "lymphedema" and to clarify management. METHODS: The authors' Vascular Anomalies Center database was reviewed between 1999 and 2010 for patients referred with a diagnosis of lymphedema of the lower extremity. Records were studied to determine the correct cause for the enlarged extremity. Alternative diagnoses, sex, age of onset, and imaging studies were also analyzed. RESULTS: A referral diagnosis of lower extremity lymphedema was given to 170 children; however, the condition was confirmed in only 72.9 percent of patients. Forty-six children (27.1 percent) had another disorder: microcystic/macrocystic lymphatic malformation (19.6 percent), noneponymous combined vascular malformation (13.0 percent), capillary malformation (10.9 percent), Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome (10.9 percent), hemihypertrophy (8.7 percent), posttraumatic swelling (8.7 percent), Parkes Weber syndrome (6.5 percent), lipedema (6.5 percent), venous malformation (4.3 percent), rheumatologic disorder (4.3 percent), infantile hemangioma (2.2 percent), kaposiform hemangioendothelioma (2.2 percent), or lipofibromatosis (2.2 percent). Age of onset in children with lymphedema was older than in patients with another diagnosis (p = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: "Lymphedema" is not a generic term. Approximately one-fourth of pediatric patients with a large lower extremity are misdiagnosed as having lymphedema; the most commonly confused causes are other types of vascular anomalies. History, physical examination, and often radiographic studies are required to differentiate lymphedema from other conditions to ensure the child is managed appropriately.
Explore
Topic
Resource type
- Journal Article (3)
Publication year
-
Between 2000 and 2025
(3)
-
Between 2010 and 2019
(1)
- 2011 (1)
-
Between 2020 and 2025
(2)
- 2020 (2)
-
Between 2010 and 2019
(1)