Page 12 - Read Online
P. 12

Liang et al. Plast Aesthet Res 2019;6:23  I  http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2347-9264.2019.33                                               Page 7 of 9



                                              Positive  TDC measurements  Positive  Risk factors (family
                                Suspected patients   BIS                   history, acquired
                                                     Genetic screening     lymphatic damage
                                                                           etc.)

                           History     Physical examinations                Further assessment
                           symptoms    Skin evaluation              Positive  3D photography/perometry
                                       Tape measurement/water plethysmography  MRI/CT/Ultrasound

                                        Negative
                               Lymphoscintigraphy           Positive
                               MRL                                                Treatment
                               ICG lymphography/FML

                                       Negative
                                Consider other
                                potential causes


               Figure 1. Diagnostic algorithm for lymphedema. FML: fluorescence microlymphography; TDC: tissue dielectric constant; MRL: magnetic
               resonance lymphangiography; ICG: indocyanine green; CT: computed tomography; BIS: bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy; MRI:
               magnetic resonance imaging


               FOXC2, GJC2, CCNE1, SOX18 and FLT4 gene mutations have been known to be related to primary
                          [9]
                                                              [35]
                                      [34]
                                              [34]
               lymphedema , while GJA4 , GJC2  and HGF/MET  mutations correlate with secondary lymphedema.
               As genomic medicine develops, genetic screening for patients at risk might assist in early detection of
               lymphedema for the foreseeable future.
               CONCLUSION
               Since each diagnostic technique has its own pros and cons [Table 1], there’s no consensus on how to
               properly diagnose lymphedema. Adjusting to patients’ conditions and clinic facilities, practitioners should
               choose and combine these diagnostic tools flexibly. Figure 1 demonstrates a potential diagnostic algorithm
               for lymphedema recommended by the authors.


               DECLARATIONS
               Authors’ contributions
               Conceived the structure of the review: Liang ZY
               Wrote and revised the paper: Liang ZY, Long X, Yu NZ, Huang JZ
               Read and approved the manuscript: Liang ZY, Long X, Yu NZ, Huang JZ


               Availability of data and materials
               Not applicable.


               Financial support and sponsorship
               None.


               Conflicts of interest
               Long X is a first-author in one of the referenced papers; Long X, Yu NZ and Huang JZ are co-authors in
               one of the referenced papers.

               Ethical approval and consent to participate
               Not applicable.
   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17