In order to provide a physiological solution for patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL), the surgeon must understand where and how the pathology of lymphedema occurred. Based on each patient’s pathology, the treatment plan should be carefully decided and individualized. At the authors’ institution, the treatment plan is made individually based on each patient’s symptoms and relative factors. Most early-stage patients first undergo decongestive therapy and then, depending on the efficacy of the treatment, a surgical approach is suggested. If the patient is indicated for surgery, all the points of lymphatic flow obstruction are carefully examined. Thus a BCRL patient can be considered for lymphaticovenous anastomosis (LVA), a lymph node flap, scar resection, or a combination thereof. LVA targets ectatic superficial collecting lymphatics, which are located within the deep fat layer, and preoperative mapping using ultrasonography is critical. If there is contracture on the axilla, axillary scar removal is indicated to relieve the vein pressure and allow better drainage. Furthermore, removing the scars and reconstructing the fat layer will allow a better chance for the lymphatics to regenerate. After complete removal of scar tissue, a regional fat flap or a superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator flap with lymph node transfer is performed. By deciding the surgical planning for BCRL based on each patient’s pathophysiology, optimal outcomes can be achieved. Depending on each patient’s pathophysiology, LVA, scar removal, vascularized lymph node transfer with a sufficient adipocutaneous flap, and simultaneous breast reconstruction should be planned.

In order to provide a physiological solution for patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL), the surgeon must understand where and how the pathology of lymphedema occurred. Based on each patient’s pathology, the treatment plan should be carefully decided and individualized. At the authors’ institution, the treatment plan is made individually based on each patient’s symptoms and relative factors. Most early-stage patients first undergo decongestive therapy and then, depending on the efficacy of the treatment, a surgical approach is suggested. If the patient is indicated for surgery, all the points of lymphatic flow obstruction are carefully examined. Thus a BCRL patient can be considered for lymphaticovenous anastomosis (LVA), a lymph node flap, scar resection, or a combination thereof. LVA targets ectatic superficial collecting lymphatics, which are located within the deep fat layer, and preoperative mapping using ultrasonography is critical. If there is contracture on the axilla, axillary scar removal is indicated to relieve the vein pressure and allow better drainage. Furthermore, removing the scars and reconstructing the fat layer will allow a better chance for the lymphatics to regenerate. After complete removal of scar tissue, a regional fat flap or a superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator flap with lymph node transfer is performed. By deciding the surgical planning for BCRL based on each patient’s pathophysiology, optimal outcomes can be achieved. Depending on each patient’s pathophysiology, LVA, scar removal, vascularized lymph node transfer with a sufficient adipocutaneous flap, and simultaneous breast reconstruction should be planned.

BACKGROUND: We conducted this clinical study to compare the efficacy and safety between Neuramis Deep and Restylane in the correction of nasolabial folds. METHODS: In this phase III, randomized, multi-center, double-masked, matched-pairs, active-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01585220), we evaluated a total of 67 subjects (n=67). All the subjects underwent Neuramis Deep treatment on one side and Restylane on the contralateral side of the bilateral nasolabial folds at a ratio of 1:1. To compare the efficacy of Neuramis Deep and Restylane, we evaluated the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale scores and those of the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale. In addition, we compared the safety of Neuramis Deep and Restylane based on adverse events, physical examination, and clinical laboratory tests. RESULTS: Neuramis Deep was not inferior in improving the nasolabial folds as compared with Restylane. In addition, there was no significant difference in the efficacy between Neuramis Deep and Restylane. There were no significant differences in safety parameters between Neuramis Deep and Restylane. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our results indicate that Neuramis Deep may be a safe, effective material for improving the nasolabial folds. However, further studies are warranted to compare the tolerability of Neuramis Deep and Restylane based on histopathologic findings.
Hyaluronic Acid ; Nasolabial Fold* ; Physical Examination