Incidence of shoulder pain after neck dissection: a clinical explorative study for risk factors.

BACKGROUND: It is the purpose of this study to determine the incidence of shoulder pain and restricted range of motion of the shoulder after neck dissection, and to identify risk factors for the development of shoulder pain and restricted range of motion. METHODS: Clinical patients who underwent a neck dissection completed a questionnaire assessing shoulder pain. The intensity of pain was assessed using a visual analog scale (100 mm). Range of motion of the shoulder was measured. Information about reconstructive surgery and side and type of neck dissection was retrieved from the medical records. RESULTS: Of the patients (n = 177, mean age 60.3 years [SD, 11.9]) 70% experienced pain in the shoulder. Forward flexion and abduction of the operated side was severely reduced compared to the non-operated side, 21 degrees and 47 degrees, respectively. Non-selective neck dissection was a risk factor for the development of shoulder pain (9.6 mm) and a restricted shoulder abduction (55 degrees ). Reconstruction was risk factor for a restricted forward flexion of the shoulder (24.5 degrees ). CONCLUSIONS: Shoulder pain after neck dissection is clinically present in 70% of the patients. Non-selective neck dissection is a risk factor for shoulder pain and a restricted abduction. Reconstruction is a risk factor for a restricted forward flexion of the shoulder.

Measuring radiation fibrosis: the interobserver reliability of two methods of determining the degree of radiation fibrosis.

PURPOSE: To compare the interobserver reliability of the palpation method with the method of measuring tissue compliance with a tissue compliance meter (TCM) on women who underwent breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy for breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-eight patients and 30 controls were measured with the palpation method by two radiation oncologists and with the TCM by two physiotherapists. Measurements were taken on four locations of the breasts of all 68 women. Reliability coefficients were computed for both methods. A weighted kappa score was computed for the palpation method and this was compared with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) computed for the TCM method. The conditions for direct comparison of these scores were met in this study. RESULTS: A weighted kappa of 0.65 was computed for the palpation method and an ICC of 0.91 was computed for the TCM method. These scores differ significantly from each other (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The interobserver reliability of the TCM method is superior to that of the palpation method. However, at locations where the TCM is not applicable, palpation is a good alternative.