5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The efficacy of different bandaging methods in patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema: A prospective, randomized study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparative efficacy of 3MTM CobanTM 2 layer system and conventional multi-layer short-stretch bandaging in terms of volume reduction, ultrasonographic measurements, functional status, and quality of life (QoL) in the treatment of patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL).

          Patients and methods

          This prospective, single-blind, randomized study included a total of 60 BCRL patients (60 females; mean age 54.9±9.6 years; range, 30 to 73 years). The patients were randomly allocated to Group 1 (n=30) and Group 2 (n=30). Both groups received complex decongestive therapy (CDT) including skin care, lymphedema exercises, and manual lymphatic drainage (MLD) combined with traditional multi-layer short-stretch bandaging five times per week for three weeks in Group 1 and with 3MTM CobanTM 2 layer system bandaging two times per week for three weeks in Group 2. Differences in volumes, excess volumes, ultrasonographic measurements, QoL, and functional assessment scores were evaluated at baseline, after three weeks of intensive treatment period, and at two months of follow-up. Functional status was evaluated by the Quick Disability of Arm Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (Q-DASH), while the QoL was assessed using the Turkish version of Lymphedema Quality of Life Questionnaire-Arm (LYMQOL-Arm). The duration and easiness of applying bandages by physiotherapists and comfortableness of bandages according to patients and physiotherapists were also evaluated using a questionnaire.

          Results

          The demographic and clinical properties were similar between the groups. There were significant improvements in the volumes, excess volumes, ultrasonographic measures, functional scores, and QoL scores in both groups at the end of treatment. The improvements were sustained at two months of follow-up.

          Conclusion

          The 3MTM CobanTM 2 layer bandaging as a part of CDT twice a week for a period of three weeks can significantly reduce the volume and improve the disability and impaired QoL, similar to conventional short-stretch multi-layer bandages. In addition, treatment with this layer system enables a time-efficient, easy, and comfortable application of bandaging with increased mobility of the upper extremity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG)

          This paper describes the development of an evaluative outcome measure for patients with upper extremity musculoskeletal conditions. The goal is to produce a brief, self-administered measure of symptoms and functional status, with a focus on physical function, to be used by clinicians in daily practice and as a research tool. This is a joint initiative of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), the Council of Musculoskeletal Specialty Societies (COMSS), and the Institute for Work and Health (Toronto, Ontario). Our approach is consistent with previously described strategies for scale development. In Stage 1, Item Generation, a group of methodologists and clinical experts reviewed 13 outcome measurement scales currently in use and generated a list of 821 items. In Stage 2a, Initial Item Reduction, these 821 items were reduced to 78 items using various strategies including removal of items which were generic, repetitive, not reflective of disability, or not relevant to the upper extremity or to one of the targeted concepts of symptoms and functional status. Items not highly endorsed in a survey of content experts were also eliminated. Stage 2b, Further Item Reduction, will be based on results of field testing in which patients complete the 78-item questionnaire. This field testing, which is currently underway in 20 centers in the United States, Canada, and Australia, will generate the final format and content of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. Future work includes plans for validity and reliability testing.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Diagnosis and Treatment of Peripheral Lymphedema: 2016 Consensus Document of the International Society of Lymphology.

            (2016)
            This International Society of Lymphology (ISL) Consensus Document is the latest revision of the 1995 Document for the evaluation and management of peripheral lymphedema (1). It is based upon modifications: [A] suggested and published following the 1997 XVI International Congress of Lymphology (ICL) in Madrid, Spain (2), discussed at the 1999 XVII ICL in Chennai, India (3), and considered/ confirmed at the 2000 (ISL) Executive Committee meeting in Hinterzarten, Germany (4); [B] derived from integration of discussions and written comments obtained during and following the 2001 XVIII ICL in Genoa, Italy as modified at the 2003 ISL Executive Committee meeting in Cordoba, Argentina (5); [C] suggested from comments, criticisms, and rebuttals as published in the December 2004 issue of Lymphology (6); [D] discussed in both the 2005 XX ICL in Salvador, Brazil and the 2007 XXI ICL in Shanghai, China and modified at the 2008 Executive Committee meeting in Naples, Italy (7,8);[E] modified from discussions and written comments from the 2009 XXII ICL in Sydney, Australia, the 2011 XXIII ICL in Malmö, Sweden, the 2012 Executive Committee Meetings (9),and [F] from discussions at the 2013 XXIV ICL in Rome, Italy, and the 2015 XXV ICL in San Francisco, USA, as well as multiple written comments and feedback from Executive Committee and other ISL members during the 2016 drafting. The document attempts to amalgamate the broad spectrum of protocols and practices advocated worldwide for the diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema into a coordinated proclamation representing a “Consensus” of the international community based on various levels of evidence. The document is not meant to override individual clinical considerations for complex patients nor to stifle progress. It is also not meant to be a legal formulation from which variations define medical malpractice. The Society understands that in some clinics the method of treatment derives from national standards while in others access to medical equipment and supplies is limited; therefore the suggested treatments might be impractical. Adaptability and inclusiveness does come at the price that members can rightly be critical of what they see as vagueness or imprecision in definitions, qualifiers in the choice of words (e.g., the use of “may... perhaps... unclear”, etc.) and mentions (albeit without endorsement) of treatment options supported by limited hard data. Most members are frustrated by the reality that NO treatment method has really undergone a satisfactory meta-analysis (let alone rigorous, randomized, stratified, long-term, controlled study). With this understanding, the absence of definitive answers and optimally conducted clinical trials, and with emerging technologies and new approaches and discoveries on the horizon, some degree of uncertainty, ambiguity, and flexibility along with dissatisfaction with current lymphedema evaluation and management is appropriate and to be expected. We continue to struggle to keep the document concise while balancing the need for depth and details. With these considerations in mind, we believe that this 2016 version presents a Consensus that embraces the entire ISL membership, rises above national standards, identifies and stimulates promising areas for future research, and represents the best judgment of the ISL membership on how to approach patients with peripheral lymphedema in the light of currently available evidence. Therefore, the document has been, and should continue to be, challenged and debated in the pages of Lymphology (e.g., as Letters to the Editor) and ideally will remain a continued focal point for robust discussion at local, national and international conferences in lymphology and related disciplines. We further anticipate as experience evolves and new ideas and technologies emerge that this “living document” will undergo further periodic revision and refinement as the practice and conceptual foundations of medicine and specifically lymphology change and advance.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A systematic review of the evidence for complete decongestive therapy in the treatment of lymphedema from 2004 to 2011.

              To critically analyze the contemporary published research that pertains to the individual components of complete decongestive therapy (CDT), as well as CDT as a bundled intervention in the treatment of lymphedema. Publications were retrieved from 11 major medical indices for articles published from 2004-2010 by using search terms for lymphedema and management approaches. Literature archives of the authors and reference lists were examined through 2011. A research librarian assisted with initial literature searches by using search terms used in the Best Practice for the Management of Lymphoedema, plus expanded terms, for literature related to lymphedema. Authors sorted relevant literature for inclusion and exclusion; included articles were sorted into topical areas for data extraction and assessment of level of evidence by using a published grading system and consensus process. The authors reviewed 99 articles, of which 26 met inclusion criteria for individual studies and 1 case study did not meet strict inclusion criteria. In addition, 14 review articles and 2 consensus articles were reviewed. Information on study design and/or objectives, participants, outcomes, intervention, results, and study strengths and weaknesses was extracted from each article. Study evidence was categorized according to the Oncology Nursing Society Putting Evidence into Practice level of evidence guidelines after achieving consensus among authors. Levels of evidence were only moderately strong, because there were few randomized controlled trials with control groups, well-controlled interventions, and precise measurements of volume, mobility and/or function, and quality of life. Treatment interventions were often bundled, which makes it difficult to determine the contribution of each individual component of treatment to the outcomes achieved. CDT is seen to be effective in reducing lymphedema. This review focuses on original research about CDT as a bundled intervention and 2 individual components, manual lymph drainage and compression bandages. Additional studies are needed to determine the value and efficacy of the other individual components of CDT. Copyright © 2012 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Turk J Phys Med Rehabil
                Turk J Phys Med Rehabil
                tftrd
                Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
                Bayçınar Medical Publishing
                2587-0823
                2587-1250
                June 2021
                25 May 2021
                : 67
                : 2
                : 155-166
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Gülhane Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
                [2 ] Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
                [3 ] Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Hacettepe Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
                [4 ] Department of Biostatistics, University of Hacettepe Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
                Author notes
                Ayşegül Yaman, MD. Gülhane Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Fizik Tedavi ve Rehabilitasyon Kliniği, 06010 Keçiören, Ankara, Türkiye. aysegulyaman06@ 123456gmail.com .
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8097-4208
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1212-6797
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3072-8399
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3638-0880
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8692-7266
                Article
                10.5606/tftrd.2021.6287
                8343160
                34396066
                686ab351-74e2-468d-b19f-f27ec61616d5
                Copyright © 2021, Turkish Society of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                History
                : 27 March 2020
                : 17 June 2020
                Categories
                Original Article

                bandaging,function,lymphedema treatment,quality of life,ultrasonography

                Comments

                Comment on this article