-
International Journal of Molecular... Jun 2022Lymphedema and lipedema are complex diseases. While the external presentation of swollen legs in lower-extremity lymphedema and lipedema appear similar, current... (Review)
Review
Lymphedema and lipedema are complex diseases. While the external presentation of swollen legs in lower-extremity lymphedema and lipedema appear similar, current mechanistic understandings of these diseases indicate unique aspects of their underlying pathophysiology. They share certain clinical features, such as fluid (edema), fat (adipose expansion), and fibrosis (extracellular matrix remodeling). Yet, these diverge on their time course and known molecular regulators of pathophysiology and genetics. This divergence likely indicates a unique route leading to interstitial fluid accumulation and subsequent inflammation in lymphedema versus lipedema. Identifying disease mechanisms that are causal and which are merely indicative of the condition is far more explored in lymphedema than in lipedema. In primary lymphedema, discoveries of genetic mutations link molecular markers to mechanisms of lymphatic disease. Much work remains in this area towards better risk assessment of secondary lymphedema and the hopeful discovery of validated genetic diagnostics for lipedema. The purpose of this review is to expose the distinct and shared (i) clinical criteria and symptomatology, (ii) molecular regulators and pathophysiology, and (iii) genetic markers of lymphedema and lipedema to help inform future research in this field.
Topics: Adipose Tissue; Edema; Fibrosis; Humans; Lipedema; Lymphedema
PubMed: 35743063
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23126621 -
Current Oncology Reports Dec 2023This narrative review aims to offer a thorough summary of functional impairments commonly encountered by breast cancer survivors following mastectomy. Its objective is... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
This narrative review aims to offer a thorough summary of functional impairments commonly encountered by breast cancer survivors following mastectomy. Its objective is to discuss the factors influencing these impairments and explore diverse strategies for managing them.
RECENT FINDINGS
Postmastectomy functional impairments can be grouped into three categories: neuromuscular, musculoskeletal, and lymphovascular. Neuromuscular issues include postmastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS) and phantom breast syndrome (PBS). Musculoskeletal problems encompass myofascial pain syndrome and adhesive capsulitis. Lymphovascular dysfunctions include lymphedema and axillary web syndrome (AWS). Factors such as age, surgical techniques, and adjuvant therapies influence the development of these functional impairments. Managing functional impairments requires a comprehensive approach involving physical therapy, pharmacologic therapy, exercise, and surgical treatment when indicated. It is important to identify the risk factors associated with these conditions to tailor interventions accordingly. The impact of breast reconstruction on these impairments remains uncertain, with mixed results reported in the literature.
Topics: Humans; Female; Mastectomy; Breast Neoplasms; Mammaplasty; Lymphedema; Survivors
PubMed: 37955831
DOI: 10.1007/s11912-023-01474-6 -
Medicine Dec 2020Studies have shown that manual lymphatic drainage (MLD) has a beneficial effect on lymphedema related to breast cancer surgery. However, whether MLD reduces the risk of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Studies have shown that manual lymphatic drainage (MLD) has a beneficial effect on lymphedema related to breast cancer surgery. However, whether MLD reduces the risk of lymphedema is still debated. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the current evidence to assess the effectiveness of MLD in preventing and treating lymphedema in patients after breast cancer surgery.
METHODS
From inception to May 2019, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched without language restriction. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the treatment and prevention effect of MLD with a control group on lymphedema in breast cancer patients. A random-effects model was used for all analyses.
RESULTS
A total of 17 RCTs involving 1911 patients were included. A meta-analysis of 8 RCTs, including 338 patients, revealed that MLD did not significantly reduce lymphedema compared with the control group (standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI): [-0.85 to 0.67]). Subgroup analysis was basically consistent with the main analysis according to the research region, the publication year, the sample size, the type of surgery, the statistical analysis method, the mean age, and the intervention time. However, we found that MLD could significantly reduce lymphedema in patients under the age of 60 years (SMD: -1.77, 95% CI: [-2.23 to -1.31]) and an intervention time of 1 month (SMD: -1.77, 95% CI: [-2.23 to -1.30]). Meanwhile, 4 RCTs including, 1364 patients, revealed that MLD could not significantly prevent the risk of lymphedema (risk ratio (RR): 0.61, 95% CI: [0.29-1.26]) for patients having breast cancer surgery.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, this meta-analysis of 12 RCTs showed that MLD cannot significantly reduce or prevent lymphedema in patients after breast cancer surgery. However, well-designed RCTs with a larger sample size are required, especially in patients under the age of 60 years or an intervention time of 1 month.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Humans; Lymphedema; Manual Lymphatic Drainage; Mastectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33285693
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000023192 -
Phlebology May 2022Lymphedema imposes a significant economic and social burden in modern societies. Controversies about its risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment permeate the literature....
BACKGROUND
Lymphedema imposes a significant economic and social burden in modern societies. Controversies about its risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment permeate the literature. The goal of this study was to assess experts' opinions on the available literature on lymphedema while following the Delphi methodology.
METHODS
In December of 2019, the American Venous Forum created a working group tasked to develop a consensus statement regarding current practices for the diagnosis and treatment of lymphedema. A panel of experts was identified by the working group. The working group then compiled a list of clinical questions, risk factors, diagnosis and evaluation, and treatment of lymphedema. Fifteen questions that met the criteria for consensus were included in the list. Using a modified Delphi methodology, six questions that received between 60% and 80% of the votes were included in the list for the second round of analysis. Consensus was reached whenever >70% agreement was achieved.
RESULTS
The panel of experts reached consensus that cancer, infection, chronic venous disease, and surgery are risk factors for secondary lymphedema. Consensus was also reached that clinical examination is adequate for diagnosing lymphedema and that all patients with chronic venous insufficiency (C3-C6) should be treated as lymphedema patients. No consensus was reached regarding routine clinical practice use of radionuclide lymphoscintigraphy as a mandatory diagnostic tool. However, the panel came to consensus regarding the importance of quantifying edema in all patients (93.6% in favor). In terms of treatment, consensus was reached favoring the regular use of compression garments to reduce lymphedema progression (89.4% in favor, 10.6% against; mean score of 79), but the use of Velcro devices as the first line of compression therapy did not reach consensus (59.6% in favor vs 40.4% against; total score of 15). There was agreement that sequential pneumatic compression should be considered as adjuvant therapy in the maintenance phase of treatment (91.5% in favor vs. 8.5% against; mean score of 85), but less so in its initial phases (61.7% in favor vs. 38.3% against; mean score of 27). Most of the panel agreed that manual lymphatic drainage should be a mandatory treatment modality (70.2% in favor), but the panel was split in half regarding the proposal that reductive surgery should be considered for patients with failed conservative treatment.
CONCLUSION
This consensus process demonstrated that lymphedema experts agree on the majority of the statements related to risk factors for lymphedema, and the diagnostic workup for lymphedema patients. Less agreement was demonstrated on statements related to treatment of lymphedema. This consensus suggests that variability in lymphedema care is high even among the experts. Developers of future practice guidelines for lymphedema should consider this information, especially in cases of low-level evidence that supports practice patterns with which the majority of experts disagree.
Topics: Cardiology; Consensus; Delphi Technique; Expert Testimony; Humans; Lymphedema; United States
PubMed: 35258350
DOI: 10.1177/02683555211053532 -
European Journal of Physical and... Feb 2023This study aimed to compare the effects of myofascial release (MFR) on upper extremity volume in patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
AIM
This study aimed to compare the effects of myofascial release (MFR) on upper extremity volume in patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL).
DESIGN
A randomized, single-blinded, cross-over, controlled trial.
SETTING
An outpatient rehabilitation clinical setting.
POPULATION
Thirty patients with BCRL.
METHODS
Within a crossover design with randomized treatment sequences, fifteen subjects received MFR for 4 weeks, followed by 4 weeks of washout period, and then received placebo MFR and the other fifteen subjects received interventions in the reverse order. Each session had a 60 min process including either MFR or placebo MFR for 30 min, followed by complete decongestive therapy for 30 min twice a week. Upper limb volume as the primary outcome and subjective pain, shoulder range of motion (ROM), chest mobility, shoulder function, and quality of life as secondary outcomes were assessed before and at the end of each intervention period.
RESULTS
There were significant differences in upper limb volume after both MFR and placebo MFR (P<0.05) while no significant difference between MFR and placebo MFR treatments was found (P>0.05). MFR-based treatment also achieved a greater improvement than placebo MFR-based treatment in subjective pain and shoulder ROM (P<0.05), except for internal rotation, and shoulder function.
CONCLUSIONS
MFR-based treatment showed clinical improvement in shoulder function, induced by decreased edema volume and pain, and improved ROM and chest mobility. However, a further study with parallel randomized controlled trials to confirm what was achieved in the present study.
CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT
MFR-based treatment is considered an important part of BCRL rehabilitation. Moreover, MFR-based treatment may be safe for patients with BCRL.
Topics: Female; Humans; Breast Neoplasms; Lymphedema; Myofascial Release Therapy; Pain; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome; Cross-Over Studies
PubMed: 36637800
DOI: 10.23736/S1973-9087.22.07698-5 -
Canadian Family Physician Medecin de... Oct 2023
Topics: Humans; Female; Lymphedema; Neoplasms; Breast Neoplasms
PubMed: 37833081
DOI: 10.46747/cfp.6910691 -
European Journal of Cancer Care Sep 2022The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of complex physical therapy combined with intermittent pneumatic compression (CPT + IPC) versus Kinesio... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Intensive complex physical therapy combined with intermittent pneumatic compression versus Kinesio taping for treating breast cancer-related lymphedema of the upper limb: A randomised cross-over clinical trial.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of complex physical therapy combined with intermittent pneumatic compression (CPT + IPC) versus Kinesio taping (KT) for breast cancer-related lymphedema.
METHODS
A cross-over clinical trial was conducted in 43 women with lymphedema. All participants received two interventions: CPT + IPC and KT, both lasting 3 weeks and a washout period. The main outcome variable was the relative volume change (RVC). The secondary variables were Satisfaction Questionnaire about Textile Therapeutic Devices used for Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, motion range of upper limb and lymphedema-related symptoms.
RESULTS
The RVC reduction was greater with CPT + IPC (-2.2%, SD = 4.7) versus KT (-0.9%, SD = 1.7) (P = 0.002). KT was more satisfactory than multilayer bandaging (8.9 points difference, P < 0.001) and improved DASH score more than CPT + IPC (14.3 points difference, P = 0.002). Regarding motion ranges, only shoulder movements showed significant improvement with CPT + IPC compared with KT (differences between 5.6° and 11.4°). Of the symptoms assessed, only pain reduction showed a significant improvement with KT versus CPT + IPC (0.5 points, P = 0.035).
CONCLUSIONS
CPT + IPC achieved higher RVC and greater improvement in th shoulder motion range than KT. Conversely, KT was more satisfactory than multilayer bandaging, obtained better DASH scores and relieved pain more than CPT + IPC.
CLINICAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrial registration number: NCT03051750 (date of registration 14 February 2017).
Topics: Breast Cancer Lymphedema; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Intermittent Pneumatic Compression Devices; Lymphedema; Pain; Physical Therapy Modalities; Treatment Outcome; Upper Extremity
PubMed: 35642305
DOI: 10.1111/ecc.13625 -
Journal of Physiotherapy Apr 2022When added to decongestive lymphatic therapy (DLT), what is the effect of fluoroscopy-guided manual lymphatic drainage (MLD) versus traditional MLD or placebo MLD for... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Manual lymphatic drainage with or without fluoroscopy guidance did not substantially improve the effect of decongestive lymphatic therapy in people with breast cancer-related lymphoedema (EFforT-BCRL trial): a multicentre randomised trial.
QUESTIONS
When added to decongestive lymphatic therapy (DLT), what is the effect of fluoroscopy-guided manual lymphatic drainage (MLD) versus traditional MLD or placebo MLD for the treatment of breast cancer-related lymphoedema (BCRL)?
DESIGN
Multicentre, three-arm, randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation, intention-to-treat analysis and blinding of assessors and participants.
PARTICIPANTS
At five hospitals in Belgium, 194 participants with unilateral chronic BCRL were recruited.
INTERVENTION
All participants received standard DLT (education, skin care, compression therapy and exercises). Participants were randomised to also receive fluoroscopy-guided MLD (n = 65), traditional MLD (n = 64) or placebo MLD (n = 65). Participants received 14 sessions of physiotherapy during the 3-week intensive phase and 17 sessions during the 6-month maintenance phase. Participants performed self-management on the other days.
OUTCOME MEASURES
All outcomes were measured: at baseline; after the intensive phase; after 1, 3 and 6 months of maintenance phase; and after 6 months of follow-up. The primary outcomes were reduction in excess volume of the arm/hand and accumulation of excess volume at the shoulder/trunk, with the end of the intensive phase as the primary endpoint. Secondary outcomes included daily functioning, quality of life, erysipelas and satisfaction.
RESULTS
Excess lymphoedema volume decreased after 3 weeks of intensive treatment in each group: 5.3 percentage points of percent excessive volume (representing a relative reduction of 23.3%) in the fluoroscopy-guided MLD group, 5.2% (relative reduction 20.9%) in the traditional MLD group and 5.4% (relative reduction 24.8%) in the placebo MLD group. The effect of fluoroscopy-guided MLD was very similar to traditional MLD (between-group difference 0.0 percentage points, 95% CI -2.0 to 2.1) and placebo MLD (-0.2 percentage points, 95% CI -2.1 to 1.8). Fluid accumulated at the shoulder/trunk in all groups. The average accumulation with fluoroscopy-guided MLD was negligibly less than with traditional MLD (-3.6 percentage points, 95% CI -6.4 to -0.8) and placebo MLD (-2.4 percentage points, 95% CI -5.2 to 0.4). The secondary outcomes also showed no clinically important between-group differences.
CONCLUSION
In patients with chronic BCRL, MLD did not provide clinically important additional benefit when added to other components of DLT.
REGISTRATION
NCT02609724.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Female; Fluoroscopy; Humans; Lymphedema; Manual Lymphatic Drainage; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35428594
DOI: 10.1016/j.jphys.2022.03.010 -
PloS One 2018evaluate whether manual lymphatic drainage (MLD) or active exercise (AE) is associated with shoulder range of motion (ROM), wound complication and changes in the...
Long term effects of manual lymphatic drainage and active exercises on physical morbidities, lymphoscintigraphy parameters and lymphedema formation in patients operated due to breast cancer: A clinical trial.
PURPOSE
evaluate whether manual lymphatic drainage (MLD) or active exercise (AE) is associated with shoulder range of motion (ROM), wound complication and changes in the lymphatic parameters after breast cancer (BC) surgery and whether these parameters have an association with lymphedema formation in the long run.
METHODS
Clinical trial with 106 women undergoing radical BC surgery, in the Women's Integrated Healthcare Center-University of Campinas. Women were matched for staging, age and body mass index and were allocated to performed AE or MLD, 2 weekly sessions during one month after surgery. The wound was evaluated 2 months after surgery. ROM, upper limb circumference measurement and upper limb lymphoscintigraphy were performed before surgery, and 2 and 30 months after surgery.
RESULTS
The incidence of seroma, dehiscence and infection did not differ between groups. Both groups showed ROM deficit of flexion and abduction in the second month postoperative and partial recovery after 30 months. Cumulative incidence of lymphedema was 23.8% and did not differ between groups (p = 0.29). Concerning the lymphoscintigraphy parameters, there was a significant convergent trend between baseline degree uptake (p = 0.003) and velocity visualization of axillary lymph nodes (p = 0.001) with lymphedema formation. A reduced marker uptake before or after surgery predicted lymphedema formation in the long run (>2 years). None of the lymphoscintigraphy parameters were shown to be associated with the study group. Age ≤39 years was the factor with the greatest association with lymphedema (p = 0.009). In women with age ≤39 years, BMI >24Kg/m2 was significantly associated with lymphedema (p = 0.017). In women over 39 years old, women treated with MLD were at a significantly higher risk of developing lymphedema (p = 0.011).
CONCLUSION
Lymphatic abnormalities precede lymphedema formation in BC patients. In younger women, obesity seems to be the major player in lymphedema development and, in older women, improving muscle strength through AE can prevent lymphedema. In essence, MLD is as safe and effective as AE in rehabilitation after breast cancer surgery.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Body Mass Index; Breast Neoplasms; Exercise; Female; Humans; Lymphedema; Lymphoscintigraphy; Manual Lymphatic Drainage; Mastectomy; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications; Range of Motion, Articular; Shoulder; Wound Healing
PubMed: 29304140
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189176 -
International Angiology : a Journal of... Oct 2020Lymphology is evolving in search of a better management of lymphedema patients, both as to the diagnostic pathway and as to the therapeutic options. Similarly, lymphatic... (Review)
Review
Lymphology is evolving in search of a better management of lymphedema patients, both as to the diagnostic pathway and as to the therapeutic options. Similarly, lymphatic system is involved in a wide spectrum of pathophysiologic processes of most chronic degenerative diseases. Translational medicine integrates the interdisciplinary scientific knowledge to improve diagnostic and therapeutic options in the biomedical field. Inflammation and lymphatic function are regarded as the connecting biochemical factors in most diseases. This review focuses on the scientific publications regarding lymphatic system in connection to psycho-neuroendocrine immunology, hormesis, epigenetics and more generally nutrition and lifestyle. The interaction between lymphology and translational medicine may play a relevant role to improve management of lymphedema on the one hand, and of chronic degenerative diseases on the other.
Topics: Humans; Lymphatic System; Lymphatic Vessels; Lymphedema; Translational Research, Biomedical
PubMed: 32348100
DOI: 10.23736/S0392-9590.20.04333-3