The Use of Non-ICG-Enhanced Lymphatic Vessels for LVA

The Use of Non-Indocyanine Green-Enhanced Lymphatic Vessels for Supermicrosurgical Lymphaticovenous Anastomosis: a Propensity-Score-Matched Outcome Analysis

Status

Completed

Phases

Study type

Interventional

Source

ClinicalTrials.gov

Registry ID

NCT06742242

Acronym

ICG LVA

Enrollment

106

Registered

2024-12-19

Start date

2015-09-30

Completion date

2023-03-31

Last updated

2024-12-19

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Lymphedema

Keywords

propensity score matching, LVA, Supermicrosurgery, lymphaticovenous anastomosis, lymphovenous bypass

Brief summary

The aim of the present study was to investigate the impact of non-ICG(+) LVs on the outcomes after LVA compared to ICG(+) LVs with propensity-score-match analysis.

Detailed description

It is a common belief among lymphatic supermicrosurgeons that LVA should only be performed with indocyanine green-enhanced (ICG(+)) LVs since such LVs are considered functional and are suitable for achieving better outcomes. However, in moderate to advance lymphedema patients, the use of non-ICG(+) LVs are inevitable despite efforts to identified ICG(+) LVs with ICG lymphography10, magnetic resonance (MR) lymphangiography11, or ultrasound12. In a previous study, it was suggested that a non-ICG(+) but flow-positive LV should also be considered functional because the functionality of an LV should be determined by its capability to transport lymph instead of ICG(+) lymph. Therefore, non- ICG(+) but flow-positive LVs should also be used for LVA to maximize the outcome13. This hypothesis was further supported by a recent article emphasizing the concept of a lymphatic-based lymphosome14, where it has been demonstrated that a functional LV will not become ICG(+) when ICG is not injected in the region being drained by this particular LV. It offers an explanation as to why a supposedly functional LV is not enhanced by ICG.

Interventions

PROCEDURElymphaticovenous anastomosis

supermicrosurgical lymphatic vessel to recipient ven lumen-to-lumen coaptation

Study design

Allocation

Intervention model

SINGLE_GROUP

Primary purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

ALL

Age

20 Years to 100 Years

Healthy volunteers

Inclusion criteria

* Patients diagnosed with lymphatic-related diseases at Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital from September 2015 to March 2023. * Patients who underwent LVA for unilateral lower-limb lymphedema.

Exclusion criteria

* Primary lymphedema * Bilateral lower limb lymphedema * History of previous treatment for lymphedema (LVA, vascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT), liposuction, or excisional therapy such as the Charles procedure) - Those that were lost to follow-up.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame	Description
Volume change after LVA.	6/12 months	The primary endpoint was the volume change at 6/12 months after LVA.

Countries

Taiwan

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026