ObjectiveTo summarize the progress of the roles and mechanisms of various types of stem cell-based treatments and their combination therapies in both animal studies and clinical trials of lymphedema. MethodsThe literature on stem cell-based treatments for lymphedema in recent years at home and abroad was extensively reviewed, and the animal studies and clinical trials on different types of stem cells for lymphedema were summarized.ResultsVarious types of stem cells have shown certain effects in animal studies and clinical trials on the treatment of lymphedema, mainly through local differentiation into lymphoid endothelial cells and paracrine cytokines with different functions. Current research focuses on two cell types, adipose derived stem cells and bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells, both of which have their own advantages and disadvantages, mainly reflected in the therapeutic effect of stem cells, the difficulty of obtaining stem cells and the content in vivo. In addition, stem cells can also play a synergistic role in combination with other treatments, such as conservative treatment, surgical intervention, cytokines, biological scaffolds, and so on. However, it is still limited to the basic research stage, and only a small number of studies have completed clinical trials. ConclusionStem cells have great transformation potential in the treatment of lymphedema, but there is no unified standard in the selection of cell types, the amount of transplanted cells, and the timing of transplantation.
ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of single-stage vascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT) combined with lymphaticovenular anastomosis (LVA) and liposuction (LS) (3L) versus LVA combined with LS (2L) for the treatment of moderate-to-late stage upper limb lymphedema following breast cancer surgery. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 16 patients with moderate-to-late stage upper limb lymphedema after breast cancer surgery, treated between June 2022 and June 2024, who met the selection criteria. Patients were divided into 3L group (n=7) and 2L group (n=9) based on the surgical approach. There was no significant difference (P>0.05) in baseline data between the groups, including age, body mass index, duration of edema, volume of liposuction, International Society of Lymphology (ISL) stage, preoperative affected limb volume, preoperative circumferences of the affected limb at 12 levels (from 4 cm distal to the wrist to 42 cm proximal to the wrist), preoperative Lymphoedema Quality of Life (LYMQoL) score, and frequency of cellulitis episodes. The 2L group underwent LS on the upper arm and proximal forearm and LVA on the middle and distal forearm. The 3L group received additional VLNT in the axilla, with the groin serving as the donor site. Outcomes assessed included the change in affected limb volume at 12 months postoperatively, and comparisons of limb circumferences, LYMQoL score, and frequency of cellulitis episodes between preoperative and 12-month postoperative. Ultrasound evaluation was performed at 12 months in the 3L group to assess lymph node viability. Results Both groups were followed up 12-20 months, with an average of 15.13 months. There was no significant difference in the follow-up time between the groups (t=–1.115, P=0.284). All surgical incisions healed by first intention. No adverse events, such as flap infection or necrosis, occurred in the 3L group. At 12 months after operation, ultrasound confirmed good viability of the transferred lymph nodes in the 3L group. Palpation revealed significant improvement in skin fibrosis and improved skin softness in both groups. Affected limb volume significantly decreased in both groups postoperatively (P<0.05). The reduction in limb volume significantly greater in the 3L group compared to the 2L group (P<0.05). Circumferences at all 12 measured levels significantly decreased in both groups compared to preoperative values (P<0.05). The reduction in circumference at all 12 levels was better in the 3L group than in the 2L group, with significant differences observed at 7 levels (8, 12, 16, 30, 34, 38, and 42 cm) proximal to the wrist (P<0.05). Both groups showed significant improvement in the frequency of cellulitis episodes and LYMQoL scores postoperatively (P<0.05). While the improvement in LYMQoL scores at 12 months did not differ significantly between groups (P>0.05), the reduction in cellulitis episodes was significantly greater in the 3L group compared to the 2L group (P<0.05). Conclusion The combination of VLNT+LVA+LS provides more durable and comprehensive outcomes for moderate-to-late stage upper limb lymphedema after breast cancer surgery compared to LVA+LS, offering an improved therapeutic solution for patients.