Abstract
Background:
The omentum provides abundant lymphatic tissue with reliable vascular anatomy, representing an ideal donor for vascularized lymph node transfer without risk for donor site lymphedema. We describe a novel, robotically assisted approach for omental flap harvest.
Methods:
All patients undergoing robotically assisted omentum harvest for vascularized lymph node transfer from 2017 to 2019 were identified. Patient demographics, intraoperative variables, and postoperative outcomes were reviewed.
Results:
Five patients underwent robotically assisted omentum flap harvest for vascularized lymph node transfer. The average patient age and body mass index were 51.2 years and 29.80 kg/m2, respectively. Indications for lymph node transfer were upper extremity lymphedema following mastectomy, radiation, and lymphadenectomy (60.0%); congenital unilateral lower extremity lymphedema (20.0%); and bilateral lower extremity/scrotal lymphedema following partial penectomy and bilateral inguinal/pelvic lymphadenectomy (20.0%). Four patients (80.0%) underwent standard robotic harvest, whereas 1 patient underwent single-port robotic harvest. The average number of port sites was 4.4. All patients underwent omentum flap transfer to 2 sites; in 2 cases, the flap was conjoined, and in 3 cases, the flap was segmented. The average overall operative time was 9:19. The average inpatient hospitalization was 5.2 days. Two patients experienced cellulitis, which is resolved with oral antibiotics. There were no major complications. All patients reported subjective improvement in swelling and softness of the affected extremity. The average follow-up was 8.8 months.
Conclusions:
Robotically assisted omental harvest for vascularized lymph node transfer is a novel, safe, and viable minimally invasive approach offering improved intra-abdominal visibility and maneuverability for flap dissection.
INTRODUCTION
The omentum is an attractive donor for vascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT), given its abundant lymphatic tissue, broad surface area, reliable vascularity, and mitigated risk of donor site lymphedema.1–6 Further, the omentum provides sufficient tissue for simultaneous orthotopic and heterotopic transfer in a conjoined or segmented fashion via its dual pedicle supply.1,7 Disadvantages of the omentum flap include the risk of intra-abdominal complications such as pancreatitis and ileus, along with a potential need for a laparotomy, which can be mitigated via minimally invasive approaches.1 We, therefore, describe a novel approach for robotically assisted omentum harvest for VLNT in the treatment of lymphedema.
METHODS
All patients with lymphedema undergoing robotic-assisted omentum harvest for VLNT from 2017 to 2019 were identified. Patient demographics, intraoperative variables, and outcomes were reviewed.
TECHNIQUE
The Intuitive Xi robot (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, Calif.) is used for multiport robotic harvest. First, an 1.5-cm umbilical incision is made. A 10-mm balloon tip trocar is placed, and the abdomen is insufflated. The robotic camera is introduced, and two 8-mm ports are placed on the left. A 5-mm port is placed lateral to the umbilicus on the right, and an additional port is placed lateral to this assistant port (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1.

Port site placement for standard robotically assisted approach for omentum harvest.
The Intuitive SP robot (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, Calif.) is used for a modified single-port approach; a 2.7-cm vertical incision through the fascia below the umbilicus is made. The single-port trocar is placed intraperitoneally under direct visualization. The single-port cannula is then placed, and the abdomen is insufflated. A 5-mm assistant port is placed at the left lower quadrant.
Indocyanine green is locally injected into the distal omentum and examined under fluorescent angiography via the robot to identify lymph node clusters. The omentum is dissected from the transverse colon and greater curvature of the stomach while the right and left gastroepiploic arteries are isolated. Before flap harvest, the appropriate recipient site(s) are prepared. The omentum is harvested, placed in a large endobag, and retrieved (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2.

Omentum shown after robotically assisted harvest and retrieval through the 10-mm trocar. The right and left gastroepiploic pedicles are labeled.
After microsurgical anastomosis at one recipient site, the flap is examined clinically and under fluorescent angiography. In cases of planned conjoined omentum transfer, the flap is tunneled subcutaneously to the second recipient site and a second set of microsurgical anastomoses are performed. In cases of segmented omentum flap transfers, the omentum is split based on the nodal distribution and/or watershed regions identified under fluorescent angiography followed by anastomosis at the second recipient site. Lipectomy and skin grafting to reduce tension from primary closure are performed as needed (Fig. 3 and 4).
Fig. 3.

Omentum perfused after anastomosis of the right gastroepiploic vessels to the descending geniculate system before segmentation of the flap for anastomosis at the second, heterotopic recipient site.
Fig. 4.

Split omentum flap placed heterotopically with anastomosis performed end-to-end to the posterior tibial vessels.
RESULTS
Five patients underwent robotically assisted omentum flap harvest for VLNT. Average patient age and body mass index were 51.2 years and 29.80 kg/m2, respectively. Eighty percent of patients were female.
Indications for lymph node transfer were upper extremity lymphedema following mastectomy, radiation, and lymphadenectomy in the treatment of breast cancer in 3 patients (60.0%), congenital unilateral lower extremity lymphedema in 1 patient (20.0%), and bilateral lower extremity/scrotal lymphedema following partial penectomy and bilateral inguinal/pelvic lymphadenectomy in 1 patient (20.0%). The average duration of swelling was 6.4 years; 1 patient experienced recurrent cellulitis. One patient had undergone unsuccessful lymphovenous bypass. Four patients (80.0%) underwent preoperative imaging [magnetic resonance lymphangiography (4), lymphoscintigraphy (1)], demonstrating the lack of functioning lymph nodes with delayed lymphatic transit.
Four patients (80.0%) underwent standard robotic harvest, whereas 1 patient underwent modified single-port robotic harvest. The average number of port sites was 4.4. One patient required a 5-cm upper midline laparotomy incision to retrieve the omentum. All patients underwent omentum flap transfer to 2 sites; in 2 cases, the flap was conjoined, and in 3 cases, the flap was segmented. In all upper extremity cases, anastomoses were performed in the axilla to the thoracodorsal vessels and in the upper arm to the radial recurrent vessels. In one lower extremity, one flap was transferred to the descending genicular vessels in the medial thigh, whereas one was transferred end-to-end to the posterior tibial vessels at the ankle. In the other lower extremity case, a conjoined omentum flap was transferred to the bilateral groins and perineum, with one pedicle anastomosed to the deep inferior epigastric vessels and a second vein anastomosed contralaterally. Three patients (60.0%) underwent concomitant scar release, whereas 2 patients (40.0%) each underwent lipectomy and skin grafting. The average overall operative time was 9:19.
The average inpatient hospitalization was 5.2 days. Two patients experienced cellulitis, which is resolved with oral antibiotics. There were no major complications. All patients reported subjective improvement in swelling and softness. The average follow-up was 8.8 months.
DISCUSSION
VLNT is effective in the treatment of advanced stage lymphedema through mechanisms that continue to be delineated.8–12 The omentum represents an ideal donor for VLNT; however, its utilization has been limited by concerns for complications related to intra-abdominal manipulation and the need for laparotomy.1–7 Laparoscopic techniques for omental flap harvest have been described but remain marred by imperfect visualization and ability for fine dissection.2,3,13–16 Meanwhile, robotic harvest offers unique advantages.17–23 Several studies demonstrate a shorter hospital stay, less estimated blood loss, and decreased postoperative complications in intra-abdominal procedures utilizing the surgical robot.24–26 Further, the three dimensional/high definition scope in robotic surgery has been shown to enhance terrain visualization and improve depth perception when compared to laparoscopy.23 Although one case of robotic omental flap harvest for wound coverage has been described, the overall experience is lacking.17–23
We, thus, describe our techniques for robotically assisted omentum harvest for VLNT. Robotically assisted harvest provides unparalleled visualization of the omentum for fine dissection and isolation of the pedicles while minimizing risk of damage to adjacent intra-abdominal structures due to tremor filtration and feedback, allowing better surgical ergonomy. Further, current robotic equipment offers fluorescent optics that can be utilized for identification of vascular and lymph node patterns. These represent unique advantages over laparoscopic harvest techniques, in which dissection is not as refined or precise, risking detriment to the tissues.13–16 Intra-abdominal access is limited to2–5 small ports, which generally permit removal of the omentum through a trocar, although in one case, a small laparotomy was necessary. Notably, length of hospital stay was 4–5 days for treating all patients except for the patient undergoing transfer to the bilateral groins for penoscrotal/bilateral lower extremity lymphedema. This patient stayed in the hospital for 7 days because his mobility was slowly increased to minimize stress on the pedicles. Although limited by a small sample size, early outcomes are promising.1–6 Although studies comparing robotic- versus laparoscopically assisted surgery in other specialties have demonstrated longer operative times with improved equivalent morbidity, comparative analyses of outcomes, complications including small bowel obstruction, and costs between robotically assisted and other harvest methods for omental VLNT are future areas of investigation.27–29 (See Video [online], which displays robotic harvest of omentum flap for VLNT in treatment of lymphedema).
Video 1. Robotic Harvest of Omentum Flap. Video from “Robotic-Assisted Omentum Flap Harvest: A Novel, Minimally Invasive Approach for Vascularized Lymph Node Transfer”.
Robotically assisted omentum harvest represents a novel and viable minimally invasive approach in patients undergoing VLNT in the treatment of refractory lymphedema.
Footnotes
Published online 24 April 2020.
Disclosure: The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article.
Related Digital Media are available in the full-text version of the article on www.PRSGlobalOpen.com.
REFERENCES
- 1.Kenworthy EO, Nelson JA, Verma R, et al. Double vascularized omentum lymphatic transplant (VOLT) for the treatment of lymphedema. J Surg Oncol. 2018;117:1413–1419. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Chu YY, Allen RJ, Jr, Wu TJ, et al. Greater omental lymph node flap for upper limb lymphedema with lymph nodes-depleted patient. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5:e1288. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Lasso JM, Pinilla C, Castellano M. New refinements in greater omentum free flap transfer for severe secondary lymphedema surgical treatment. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015;3:e387. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Cook JA, Sasor SE, Tholpady SS, et al. Omental vascularized lymph node flap: a radiographic analysis. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2018;34:472–477. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Howell AC, Gould DJ, Mayfield C, et al. Anatomical basis of the gastroepiploic vascularized lymph node transfer: a radiographic evaluation using computed tomographic angiography. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142:1046–1052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Mazzaferro D, Song P, Massand S, et al. The omental free flap—a review of usage and physiology. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2018;34:151–169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Smith ML, Molina BJ, Dayan E, et al. Heterotopic vascularized lymph node transfer to the medial calf without a skin paddle for restoration of lymphatic function: proof of concept. J Surg Oncol. 2017;115:90–95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Tourani SS, Taylor GI, Ashton MW. Vascularized lymph node transfer: a review of the current evidence. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:985–993. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Scaglioni MF, Arvanitakis M, Chen YC, et al. Comprehensive review of vascularized lymph node transfers for lymphedema: outcomes and complications. Microsurgery. 2018;38:222–229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Aljaaly HA, Fries CA, Cheng MH. Dorsal wrist placement for vascularized submental lymph node transfer significantly improves breast cancer-related lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7:e2149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Ho OA, Chu SY, Huang YL, et al. Effectiveness of vascularized lymph node transfer for extremity lymphedema using volumetric and circumferential differences. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7:e2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Cheng MH, Loh CYY, Lin CY. Outcomes of vascularized lymph node transfer and lymphovenous anastomosis for treatment of primary lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6:e2056. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.McIntyre BC, Lobb D, Navarro F, et al. Laparoscopic free omental flap for craniofacial reconstruction: a video article demonstrating operative technique and surgical applications. J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28:311–313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Craig SJ, Zhang A, Gardner TD, et al. Laparoscopic harvest of the gastro-omental free flap for reconstruction after total pharyngolaryngectomy: operative technique. Head Neck. 2017;39:1696–1698. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.van Alphen TC, Fechner MR, Smit JM, et al. The laparoscopically harvested omentum as a free flap for autologous breast reconstruction. Microsurgery. 2017;37:539–545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Nguyen AT, Suami H. Laparoscopic free omental lymphatic flap for the treatment of lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136:114–118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Schwartzberg DM, Remzi FH. The role of laparoscopic, robotic, and open surgery in uncomplicated and complicated inflammatory bowel disease. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2019;29:563–576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Economopoulos KP, Mylonas KS, Stamou AA, et al. Laparoscopic versus robotic adrenalectomy: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2017;38:95–104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Park EJ, Baik SH. Robotic surgery for colon and rectal cancer. curr Oncol Rep. 2016;18:5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Mushtaq HH, Shah SK, Agarwal AK. The current role of robotics in colorectal surgery. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2019;21:11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Sun JY, Granieri MA, Zhao LC. Robotics and urologic reconstructive surgery. Tansl Androl Urol. 2018;7:545–557. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Özkan Ö, Özkan Ö, Çinpolat A, et al. Robotic harvesting of the omental flap: a case report and mini-review of the use of robots in reconstructive surgery. JRobot Surg. 2019;13:539–543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Mosbrucker C, Somani A, Dulemba J. Visualization of endometriosis: comparative study of 3-dimensional robotic and 2-dimensional laparoscopic endoscopes. JRobot Surg. 2018;12:59–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Chang YS, Wang JX, Chang DW. A meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy. JSurg Res. 2015;195:465–474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Brandao LF, Autorino R, Laydner H, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic adrenalectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2014;65:1154–1161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, et al. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA. 2013;309:689–698. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Kraft CT, Eiferman D, Jordan S, et al. Complications after vascularized jejunal mesenteric lymph node transfer: a 3-year experience. Microsurgery. 2019;39:497–501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Lorenzon L, Bini F, Balducci G, et al. Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted colectomy and rectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016;31:161–173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Solaini L, Bazzocchi F, Cavaliere D, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2018;32:1104–1110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
