Update on the thoracic outlet syndrome and plexus brachial syndrome: Specific clinical examination (for all) and rehabilitation protocol.

The diagnosis of uncomplicated forms of thoracobrachial outlet syndrome (TOS) and brachial plexus stretching syndrome (BPSS) is imprecise due to the lack of clear differentiation between dynamic vascular or neurological compression and brachial plexus stretching without vascular compression. After a review of literature, we propose and describe a simple way for clinical assessment of TOS, BPSS or association of both comprising 1 clinical sign and 2 manoeuvres. This clinical assessment can be performed by the medical doctor, the physiotherapist and the surgeon. The clinical diagnosis is essential because it will dictate the rehabilitation treatment. We propose and describe also a rehabilitation protocol comprising 10 phases with modulation of exercises according to clinical form (TOS, BPSS or association) and/or severity of symptoms. The physiotherapist has a capital role and is the guarantor of the effectiveness of the medical treatment. In France, a training is now available thanks to personal continuous development for diagnosis and treatment of TOS and BPSS. This is essential in order to propose an optimal care to patients.

High tolerance of progressive elastic compression in peripheral arterial disease.

Background: Theoretically progressive compression stockings, which produce a higher compression at the calf than at the ankle level, improve venous return flow without exacerbating peripheral arterial insufficiency (PAD). We aimed to evaluate the short-term tolerance of elastic progressive compression stockings on peripheral arterial vascularisation in patients with symptomatic PAD and associated mild venous insufficiency. Patients and methods: Monocentric, prospective, open pilot study of 18 patients (acceptability study, 6 x 6 plan) evaluating the short-term tolerance of progressive compression stockings (18 ± 2 mmHg at calf and 8 ± 2 mmHg at ankle level) in patients with PAD (ankle brachial index ABI > 0.60 < 0.75) and chronic venous insufficiency (C1s-C4 stages of the CEAP classification). Day 15 tolerance was evaluated by a composite primary criteria comprising: no decrease > 15 % of ABI on each side, no decrease > 15 % of toe brachial index (TBI) on each side and no decrease > 25 % of the number of active plantar flexions performed while standing. Results: The proportion of men was 77.8 %, mean age was 77.3 ± 7.5 years and no patient were diabetic. At inclusion, the mean low ABI was 0.60 ± 0.04 and the mean high ABI was 0.77 ± 0.18. The mean low TBI was 0.32 ± 0.09 and the mean high TBI 0.46 ± 0.15. The mean number of active standing plantar flexions was 33.0 ± 5.0. The majority of the patients were classified in CEAP C2s and C3 classes (class 2: 16.7 %, class C2s: 27.8 %, class C3: 44.4 %, class C4: 5.6 % and class C4s: 5.6 %). Poor tolerance occurred in no patient. By day 30, no patient had worsening of their arterial and venous symptoms. No adverse events occurred during the study. Conclusions: These results suggest a high tolerance of progressive elastic stockings (18 ± 2 mmHg at calf and 8 ± 2 mmHg at ankle level) in symptomatic PAD.

A randomized double-blind trial of upward progressive versus degressive compressive stockings in patients with moderate to severe chronic venous insufficiency.

BACKGROUND: The present randomized double-blind multicenter study was designed to assess the efficacy of a progressive compressive stocking (new concept with maximal pressure at calf), compared to a degressive compressive stocking graded 30 mm Hg, evaluating the improvement of lower leg symptoms of chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) in ambulatory patients with moderate to severe chronic venous disease. METHODS: Both gender outpatients presenting symptomatic moderate to severe CVI were eligible for a treatment by compressive stockings. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either degressive compressive stockings (30 mm Hg at ankle, 21 mm Hg at upper calf) or progressive compressive stockings (10 mm Hg at ankle, 23 mm Hg at upper calf). The primary outcome, evaluated after 3 months, was a composite success outcome, including improvement of pain or heavy legs without onset of either ulcer, deep or superficial vein thrombosis of the lower limbs, or pulmonary embolism. The ease of application of the compressive stockings reported by patients was one of secondary outcome. RESULTS: Overall, 401 patients (199 in the progressive compressive stocking group and 202 in the degressive compressive stocking group) were randomized by 44 angiologists in France. Among them, 66% were classified in the C3 CEAP category. The rate of success was significantly higher in the progressive compressive stocking group compared to the degressive compressive stocking group (70.0% vs 59.6%; relative risk, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.37; P = .03). This was mainly due to more frequent symptom improvement in the progressive compressive stocking group. The compressive stockings were considered easy to apply by 81.3% of patients in the progressive compressive stocking group vs 49.7% of patients in the degressive compressive stocking group (P < .0001). The rate of related serious adverse events was low and similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This trial has demonstrated that progressive compressive stockings are more effective than usual degressive compressive stockings in the improvement of pain and lower leg symptoms in patients with CVI. Moreover, progressive compressive stockings were easier to apply, raising no safety concern at 3 months.

[Booster study: comparative evaluation of a new concept of elastic stockings in mild venous insufficiency]. / Etude booster : évaluation comparative d'un nouveau concept de compression élastique dans l'insuffisance veineuse chronique légère et modérée.

BACKGROUND: Evaluate a new progressive concept of compression stockings in comparison with degressive compression stockings class 2 in patients with mild venous insufficiency without permanent oedema (class 1 of Porter's classification or C0s-C1s-C2s CEAP's classification). METHODS: The aim of this randomised, double-blind french, multicenter trial was to compare the efficacy and convenience of the new ES compared to conventional ES in patients with mild venous insufficiency for whom elastic compression by knee stockings was indicated. The primary endpoint was leg heaviness after 15 days of wearing ES. Secondary endpoints were discomfort and compliance. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients were included (progressive ES: 64; conventional ES: 66). Mean age was 43 years, 68% were women. Disappearance or major improvement of leg heaviness was observed in 73% of patients wearing progressive ES and 62.5% of those wearing conventional ES (difference = -10.5% [95% CI -26.7; +5.6]). This result met pre-specified statistical criteria for non-inferiority and was confirmed by per-protocol analysis. Ease of putting on ES and comfort were significantly better with progressive ES (p<0.0001), as was compliance (p=0.016). INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS: The Booster study is the first randomised, double-blind, multicentre trial evaluating a new concept of compression in mild venous insufficiency. The progressive ES is as efficient as degressive ES but it observance is better. This promising new concept deserves to be evaluated in other settings.