Treatment of Established Groin Lymphatic Complications After Arterial Surgery: A Systematic Review.
BACKGROUND: To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of interventions for established groin lymphatic complications after arterial vascular surgery. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception to May 28, 2025. This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251061708) and conducted according to PRISMA, PRISMA-S, and Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidance. Eligible studies included adults with established groin lymphorrhea/lymphocutaneous fistula or seroma/lymphocele after arterial exposure in the common femoral or iliofemoral region. Prophylactic studies were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened studies and assessed full texts. Prespecified outcomes were resolution, time to resolution, length of stay, surgical site infection, wound complications, reintervention, and recurrence. Owing to substantial heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not performed. RESULTS: Eighteen retrospective single-center studies were included; no randomized trials were identified. Reported strategy-family totals were operative control (n = 240, including 55 dye-assisted cases), intranodal lymphangiography with glue embolization (n = 39), intracavitary or chemical instillation (n = 52), negative-pressure wound therapy (n = 20), radiotherapy (n = 206), and drainage or aspiration alone (n = 7). One additional cohort compared nonsurgical with surgical management. Definitions, follow-up windows, and statistical reporting were inconsistent, and arm-level denominators were frequently incomplete. Risk of bias was serious to critical across the evidence base, mainly because of retrospective design, confounding by indication, treatment-selection bias, inconsistent outcome definitions, and incomplete reporting. Using GRADE principles, certainty of evidence was very low across strategies and phenotypes. Across study arms, conduit-directed approaches for external leak and cavity-directed approaches for encapsulated collections often achieved control, but valid comparative inference was not possible. CONCLUSION: Evidence is limited to small retrospective series with heterogeneous definitions, serious to critical risk of bias, and very low certainty. Reliable comparisons between interventions cannot currently be made. Standardized phenotype-specific definitions and outcome reporting are needed to support prospective studies and future trials.