Background The lymphatic system plays a vital role in fluid homeostasis, immune surveillance, and lipid transport from the gastrointestinal tract. It is implicated in the pathophysiology of numerous conditions, including lymphedema, cancer metastasis, autoimmune diseases, and infectious processes. Despite this, prior analyses of undergraduate medical curricula have identified is proportionate underrepresentation of lymphatic system content relative to other organ systems. This educational gap may contribute to decreased physician confidence in recognizing and managing lymphatic disorders, potentially delaying diagnoses or misdirecting treatment early in clinical careers. The aim of this study was to assess the current scope, quality, and perceived adequacy of lymphatic system education in U.S. allopathic medical schools.

Methods An IRB-approved, anonymous 10-minute survey was distributed to medical students and faculty at U.S. allopathic medical schools. Questions assessed time spent on lymphatic system education, teaching methods used, perceived quality of instruction, and confidence in managing lymphatic disorders. A separate subset of the survey was administered to faculty to evaluate institutional curricular practices and perspectives. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.

Results A total of 201 respondents completed the survey. When asked about dedicated instructional time on the lymphatic system—defined as total hours across lectures, small groups, or clinical case discussions—35% reported 3 hours, 25% reported 2 hours, and 11% reported only 1 hour of iinstruction. Only 2% reported 5 or more hours. Most instruction was lecture-based (54%), with limited use of small groups (21%) or clinical case discussions (18%). The perceived quality of lymphatic education was rated as "poor" or "fair" by 54% of respondents, with only 14% rating it as "good" or "excellent." Confidence in managing lymphatic disorders was low: 63% reported feeling "not confident" or "slightly confident" in recognizing and treating these conditions. Additionally, 51% reported no formal assessment of lymphatic knowledge in medical school. Among 23 faculty respondents, over 75% rated current lymphatic instruction as inadequate and reported that it is rarely formally assessed.

Conclusion These findings highlight a significant gap in lymphatic system education across U.S. allopathic medical curricula, suggesting a need for increased instructional time, integration into clinical cases, and inclusion in clinical skills training and formal assessments. Given the lymphatic system's role in diverse pathologies, targeted curricular reforms are warranted to better prepare future physicians to diagnose and manage lymphatic disorders.