Ipsilateral hemodialysis access after axillary dissection for breast cancer

Breast cancer survivors who have had axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and who later develop end-stage renal failure may eventually require hemodialysis access. If veins available for access in the contralateral arm have been exhausted, especially after chemotherapy, the ipsilateral arm will have to be considered for access construction. There are no evidence-based guidelines for lymphedema prevention, but there are sweeping recommendations to avoid physical injury to the ipsilateral limb, including needle puncture, after ALND with or without radiotherapy. Three studies have shown little or no effect of hand surgery in producing or exacerbating lymphedema after ALND. Dialysis access guidelines recommend the use of autogenous accesses over synthetic grafts whenever possible. Three patients after ALND were referred for hemodialysis access construction in our center. Pre-operative duplex ultrasound confirmed that patent veins appropriate for autogenous access construction were only present in the ipsilateral arm. Autogenous arteriovenous fistulas were constructed in the ipsilateral arm in the three patients. All the three entered our access surveillance program and were regularly examined. All had more than 20 lymph nodes removed. One had axillary radiotherapy and anthracycline-based chemotherapy, one had anthracycline-based chemotherapy without axillary radiotherapy and one had neither treatment. The access was established 4–10 years after ALND. No patient developed significant lymphedema at two, 20 and 76 months respectively after access construction, with cannulation for dialysis occurring three times a week. Autogenous hemodialysis access construction does not seem to contribute to lymphedema development after ALND. Physicians and other medical personnel caring for patients with breast cancer should not oppose the use of the ipsilateral arm if it is the only arm with vasculature suitable for autogenous access construction. Recommendations for lymphedema prevention may exaggerate the extent of risk attributable to interventions in the ipsilateral arm.