Your search

Although liposuction of lipoedema is a well-established therapeutic option in plastic and reconstructive surgery, the commonly known operative protocols vary widely between clinics. A precise summary of all described protocols and a critical evaluation have not been published to date. This review aims to create a basic structure for future Standard Operative Protocols (SOPs) in the surgical treatment of lipoedema. For that purpose, 140 publications on therapeutic approaches concerning lipoedema have been reviewed and systematically categorized. The results indicate fundamental differences in treatment strategies as well as minor differences in organizational management.

Multiple associated comorbidities have been described for lipedema patients. Disease diagnosis still remains challenging in many cases and is frequently delayed. The purpose of this study was to determine the most common comorbidities in lipedema patients and the impact of surgical treatment onto disease progression. A retrospective assessment of disease-related epidemiologic data was performed for patients who underwent liposuction between July 2009 and July 2019 in a specialized clinic for lipedema surgery. All patients received a standardized questionnaire regarding the clinical history and changes of lipedema-associated symptoms and comorbidities after surgery. 106 patients who underwent a total of 298 liposuction procedures were included in this study after returning the questionnaire fully filled-in. Multiple comorbidities were observed in the assessed collective. The prevalence for obesity, hypothyroidism, migraine, and depression were markedly increased in relation to comparable nonlipedema populations. Despite a median body mass index (BMI) of 31.6 kg/m2 (IQR 26.4-38.8), unexpected low prevalence of diabetes (5%) and dyslipidemia (7%) was found. Diagnosis and initiation of guideline-appropriate treatment were delayed by years in many patients. After surgical treatment (medium follow-up 20 months, IQR 11-42), a significant reduction of lipedema-associated symptoms was demonstrated. Lipedema occurs with a diversity of associated comorbidities. Therefore, on the basis of available data, the authors suggest the necessity of a multimodal therapy concept for a comprehensive and holistic treatment. Despite a commonly increased BMI, lipedema patients appear to have an advantageous metabolic risk profile.

BACKGROUND: Lipedema is often unrecognized or misdiagnosed; despite an estimated prevalence of 10% in the overall female population, its cause is still unknown. There is increasing awareness of this condition, but its differential diagnosis can still be challenging. In this article, we summarize current hypotheses on its pathogenesis and the recommendations of current guidelines for its diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: This review is based on publications about lipedema that were retrieved by a selective search in the MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. RESULTS: The pathophysiology of lipedema remains unclear. The putative causes that have been proposed include altered adipogenesis, microangiopathy, and disturbed lymphatic microcirculation. No specific biomarker has yet been found, and the diagnosis is currently made on clinical grounds alone. Ancillary tests are used only to rule out competing diagnoses. The state of the evidence on treatment is poor. Treatment generally consists of complex decongestive therapy. In observational studies, liposuction for the permanent reduction of adipose tissue has been found to relieve symptoms to a significant extent, with only rare complications. The statutory healthinsurance carriers in Germany do not yet regularly cover the cost of the procedure; studies of high methodological quality will be needed before this is the case. CONCLUSION: The diagnosis of lipedema remains a challenge because of the hetero - geneous presentation of the condition and the current lack of objective measuring instruments to characterize it. This review provides a guide to its diagnosis and treatment in an interdisciplinary setting. Research in this area should focus on the elucidation of the pathophysiology of lipedema and the development of a specific biomarker for it.

IntroductionLipedema is a painful subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) disease characterized by adipocyte hypertrophy, immune cell recruitment, and fibrosis in the affected areas. These features are thought to contribute to the development and progression of the condition. However, the relationship between lipedema disease stage and the associated adipose tissue changes has not been determined so far.MethodsSAT biopsies of 32 lipedema patients, ranging across the pathological stages I to III, and 14 BMI- and age-matched controls were harvested from lipedema-affected thighs and non-symptomatic lower abdominal regions. Histological and immunohistochemical (IHC) staining and expression analysis of markers for adipogenesis, immunomodulation, and fibrosis were performed on the tissue biopsies.ResultsLipedema patients showed increased adipocyte areas and a stage-dependent shift towards larger cell sizes in the thighs. Lipedema SAT was linked with increased interstitial collagen accumulation in the thighs, but not the lower abdominal region when compared to controls. There was a trend toward progressive SAT fibrosis of the affected thighs with increasing lipedema stage. Elevated gene expression levels of macrophage markers were found for thigh SAT biopsies, but not in the abdominal region. IHC staining of lipedema thigh biopsies confirmed a transiently elevated macrophage polarization towards an M2-like (anti-inflammatory) phenotype.ConclusionsIn summary, lipedema SAT is associated with stage-dependent adipocyte hypertrophy, stage-progressive interstitial fibrosis and elevated proportion of M2-like macrophages. The character of the inflammatory response differs from primary obesity and may possess an essential role in the development of lipedema.

Lipedema is a chronic adipose tissue condition that primarily affects women. Despite increasing recognition of lipedema, the condition remains poorly understood and lacks standardized diagnostic criteria or confirmatory tests. Variability in definitions and measurement across clinical and research settings impedes comparability across studies, constraining the evidence base needed to support future advances in clinical practice and patient care. To address challenges associated with inconsistent definitions and data collection, the Lipedema Foundation (LF) partnered with clinicians, researchers, and biostatisticians to develop a Lipedema Common Case Report Form (CCRF). The CCRF was designed to be a research data harmonization tool and is not intended to define diagnostic standards or guide clinical treatment decisions. Its development involved review of published lipedema clinical guidelines and collaborative work to define data elements and attributes for inclusion. When they existed, validated or standardized measures were incorporated directly. When no suitable standardized measures were available, an iterative and collaborative process was used to develop lipedema-specific Common Data Elements (CDEs). The initial version of the CCRF was piloted in participants with and without lipedema, and updates based on participant and clinician feedback were incorporated into the CCRF. A biostatistical review evaluated data completeness, quality, and structure, leading to additional refinements. The final Version 1 instrument consists of 682 CDEs organized into four classifications: (1) Core, (2) Supplemental Highly Recommended, (3) Supplemental, and (4) Exploratory. The current version is prepared for dissemination in the field. By disseminating the CCRF broadly and encouraging adoption in all lipedema research beginning in 2026, including all newly initiated LF-funded projects, LF intends to evaluate its use with grantees and iterate systematically to achieve consistent and comparable data collection. The CCRF provides a structured framework for harmonized data collection that may facilitate comparability across studies and support future development of standardized diagnostic and research methodologies.