Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 131, Issue 1, pp 147–158

A randomized clinical trial comparing advanced pneumatic truncal, chest, and arm treatment to arm treatment only in self-care of arm lymphedema

  • Sheila H. Ridner
  • Barbara Murphy
  • Jie Deng
  • Nancy Kidd
  • Emily Galford
  • Candace Bonner
  • Stewart M. Bond
  • Mary S. Dietrich
Clinical Trial

Abstract

Treatment of the truncal lymphatics prior to treatment of the lymphedematous arm is an accepted, although not empirically tested, therapeutic intervention delivered during decongestive lymphatic therapy (DLT). Breast cancer survivors with arm lymphedema are encouraged to use these techniques when performing simple lymphatic drainage as part of their life-long lymphedema self-care. Self-massage is at times difficult and pneumatic compression devices are used by many patients to assist with self-care. One such device, the Flexitouch® System, replicates the techniques used during DLT; however, the need for application of pneumatic compression in unaffected truncal areas to improve self-care outcomes in arm only lymphedema is not established. The objective of this study was to compare the therapeutic benefit of truncal/chest/arm advanced pneumatic compression therapy (experimental group) verses arm only pneumatic compression (control group) in self-care for arm lymphedema without truncal involvement using the Flexitouch® System. Outcomes of interest were self-reported symptoms, function, arm impedance ratios, circumference, volume, and trunk circumference. Forty-two breast cancer survivors, (21 per group), with Stage II lymphedema completed 30 days of home self-care using the Flexitouch® System. Findings revealed a statistically significant reduction in both the number of symptoms and overall symptom burden within each group; however, there were no statistically significant differences in these outcomes between the groups. There was no statistically significant overall change or differential pattern of change between the groups in function. A statistically significant reduction in bioelectrical impedance and arm circumference within both of the groups was achieved; however, there was no statistically significant difference in reduction between groups. These findings indicate that both configurations are effective, but that there may be no added benefit to advanced pneumatic treatment of the truncal lymphatics prior to arm massage when the trunk is not also affected. Further research is indicated in a larger sample.

Keywords

Lymphedema Flexitouch® System Pneumatic compression devices Manual lymphatic drainage Breast cancer 

References

  1. 1.
    Browse N, Bernand KG, Mortimer PS (2003) Diseases of the lymphatics. Oxford University Press Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Cancer Society (2009) Facts and figures, 2009. American Cancer Society, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    American Cancer Society (2006) Lymphedema: understanding and managing lymphedema after cancer treatment. American Cancer Society, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ehrlich A, Vinje-Harrewijn A, McMahon E (2005) Living well with lymphedema. LymphNotes, Lymph Links, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morgan PA, Franks PJ, Moffatt CJ (2005) Health-related quality of life with lymphoedema: a review of the literature. Int Wound J 2:47–62. doi:10.1111/j.1742-4801.2005.00066.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ridner S (2005) Quality of life and a symptom cluster associated with breast cancer treatment-related lymphedema. Support Care Cancer 13:904–911PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Augustin M, Bross F, Földi E, Vanscheidt W (2005) Development, validation and clinical use of the FLQA-I, a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire for patients with lymphedema. Vasa 34:31–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johansson K, Holmström H, Nilsson I, Ingvar C, Albertsson M, Ekdahl C (2003) Breast cancer patients’ experiences of lymphoedema. Scand J Caring Sci 17:35–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McMahon E (2005) Overcoming the emotional challenges of lymphedema. LymphNotes, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McWayne J, Heiney SP (2005) Psychologic and social sequelae of secondary lymphedema: a review. Cancer 104:457–466. doi:10.1002/cncr.21195 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rowland JH, Yancik R (2006) Cancer survivorship: the interface of aging, comorbidity, and quality care. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:504–505. doi:10.1093/jnci/djj154 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Williams A, Moffatt C, Franks P (2004) A phenomenological study of the lived experiences of people with lymphoedema. Int J Palliat Nurs 10:279–286PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Armer JM, Heckathorn PW (2005) Post-breast cancer lymphedema in aging women: self-management and implications for nursing. J Gerontol Nurs 31:29–39PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kornblith AB, Ligibel J (2003) Psychosocial and sexual functioning of survivors of breast cancer. Semin Oncol 30:799–813. doi:10.1053/j.seminoncol.2003.08.025 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Starritt EC, Joseph D, Mckinnon JG, Lo SK, De Wilt JHW, Thompson JF (2004) Lymphedema after complete axillary node dissection for melanoma: assessment using a new, objective definition. Ann Surg 240:866–874PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Petrek JA, Pressman PI, Smith RA (2000) Lymphedema: current issues in research and management. CA Cancer J Clin 50:292–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Földi M, Földi E, Kubik S, Asmussen P (2006) Textbook of lymphology: for physicians and lymphedema therapists, 2nd edn. Urban & Fischer, MunichGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Twycross RG, Jenns K, Todd J (2000) Lymphoedema. Radcliffe Medical Press Ltd., AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Casley-Smith JR, Boris M, Weindorf S, Lasinski B (1998) Treatment for lymphedema of the arm—the Casley-Smith method: a noninvasive method produces continued reduction. Cancer 83:2843–2860. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19981215)83:12B+<2843:AID-CNCR38>3.0.CO PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mayrovitz HN, Brown-Cross D, Mayrovitz BL, Golla AH (2009) Lymphedema: role of truncal clearance as a therapy component. Home Health Care Manag Pract 21:325–337. doi:10.1177/1084822309331484 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boris M, Weindorf S, Lasinski B (1998) The risk of genital edema after external pump compression for lower limb lymphedema. Lymphology 31:15–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cheville AL, McGarvey CL, Petrek JA, Russo SA, Taylor ME, Thiadens SRJ (2003) Lymphedema management. Semin Radiat Oncol 13:290–301. doi:10.1016/s1053-4296(03)00035-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Segers P, Belgrado JP, Leduc A, Leduc O, Verdonck P (2002) Excessive pressure in multichambered cuffs used for sequential compression therapy. Phys Ther 82:1000–1008PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eliska O, Eliskova M (1995) Are peripheral lymphatics damaged by high pressure manual massage? Lymphology 28:21–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ridner SH, Murphy B, Deng J, Kidd N, Galford E, Dietrich MS (2010) Advanced pneumatic therapy in self-care of chronic lymphedema of the trunk. Lymphat Res Biol 8:209–215. doi:10.1089/lrb.2010.0010 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    International Society of Lymphology (2009) Consensus document of the international society of lymphology: the diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema. Lymphology 42:51–60Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ridner SH, Dietrich M (2010) Development of the lymphedema symptoms intensity and distress survey arm. J Clin Oncol ASCO Suppl 28Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Millard R (1989) The functional assessment screening questionnaire: application for evaluating pain-related disability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 70:303–307PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Millard R (1991) A critical review of questionnaires for assessing pain-related disability. J Occup Rehabil 1:289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Latchford S, Casley-Smith JR (1997) Estimating limb volumes and alterations in peripheral edema from circumferences measured at different intervals. Lymphology 30:161–164PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Deltombe T, Jamart J, Recloux S, Legrand C, Vandenbroeck N, Theys S, Hanson P (2007) Reliability and limits of agreement of circumferential, water displacement, and optoelectronic volumetry in the measurement of upper limb lymphedema. Lymphology 40:26–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kosir MA, Rymal C, Koppolu P, Hryniuk L, Darga L, Du W, Rice V, Mood D, Shakoor S, Wang W (2001) Surgical outcomes after breast cancer surgery: measuring acute lymphedema. J Surg Res 95:147–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Centers for disease control (2011) Body mass index. http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/. Accessed 13 Aug 2011
  34. 34.
    Adams KE, Rasmussen JC, Darne C, Tan I (2010) Direct evidence of lymphatic function improvement after advanced pneumatic compression device treatment of lymphedema. Biomed Opt Express 1:114–125. doi:10.1364/BOE.1.000114 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sheila H. Ridner
    • 1
  • Barbara Murphy
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jie Deng
    • 1
  • Nancy Kidd
    • 1
  • Emily Galford
    • 1
  • Candace Bonner
    • 1
  • Stewart M. Bond
    • 1
  • Mary S. Dietrich
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Vanderbilt University School of NursingNashvilleUSA
  2. 2.Division of Medical OncologyVanderbilt University School of MedicineNashvilleUSA
  3. 3.Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer CenterNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations