Postural Stability in Obese Preoperative Bariatric Patients Using Static and Dynamic Evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Globally, 300 million adults have clinical obesity. Heightened adiposity and inadequate musculature secondary to obesity alter bipedal stance and gait, diminish musculoskeletal tissue quality, and compromise neuromuscular feedback; these physiological changes alter stability and increase injury risk from falls. Studies in the field focus on obese patients across a broad range of body mass indices (BMI >30 kg/m2) but without isolating the most morbidly obese subset (BMI ≥40 kg/m2). We investigated the impact of obesity in perturbing postural stability in morbidly obese subjects elected for bariatric intervention, harboring a higher-spectrum BMI. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Traditional force plate measurements and stabilograms are gold standards employed when measuring center of pressure (COP) and postural sway. To quantify the extent of postural instability in subjects with obesity before bariatric surgery, we assessed 17 obese subjects with an average BMI of 40 kg/m2 in contrast to 13 nonobese subjects with an average BMI of 30 kg/m2. COP and postural sway were measured from static and dynamic tasks. Involuntary movements were measured when patients performed static stances, with eyes either opened or closed. Two additional voluntary movements were measured when subjects performed dynamic, upper torso tasks with eyes opened. RESULTS: Mean body weight was 85% (p < 0.001) greater in obese than nonobese subjects. Following static balance assessments, we observed greater sway displacement in the anteroposterior (AP) direction in obese subjects with eyes open (87%, p < 0.002) and eyes closed (76%, p = 0.04) versus nonobese subjects. Obese subjects also exhibited a higher COP velocity in static tests when subjects' eyes were open (47%, p = 0.04). Dynamic tests demonstrated no differences between groups in sway displacement in either direction; however, COP velocity in the mediolateral (ML) direction was reduced (31%, p < 0.02) in obese subjects while voluntarily swaying in the AP direction, but increased in the same cohort when swaying in the ML direction (40%, p < 0.04). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Importantly, these data highlight obesity's contribution towards increased postural instability. Obese subjects exhibited greater COP displacement at higher AP velocities versus nonobese subjects, suggesting that clinically obese individuals show greater instability than nonobese subjects. Identifying factors contributory to instability could encourage patient-specific physical therapies and presurgical measures to mitigate instability and monitor postsurgical balance improvements.

Manual lymphatic drainage for lymphedema following breast cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: More than one in five patients who undergo treatment for breast cancer will develop breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). BCRL can occur as a result of breast cancer surgery and/or radiation therapy. BCRL can negatively impact comfort, function, and quality of life (QoL). Manual lymphatic drainage (MLD), a type of hands-on therapy, is frequently used for BCRL and often as part of complex decongestive therapy (CDT). CDT is a fourfold conservative treatment which includes MLD, compression therapy (consisting of compression bandages, compression sleeves, or other types of compression garments), skin care, and lymph-reducing exercises (LREs). Phase 1 of CDT is to reduce swelling; Phase 2 is to maintain the reduced swelling. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of MLD in treating BCRL. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, WHO ICTRP (World Health Organization's International Clinical Trial Registry Platform), and Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register from root to 24 May 2013. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of women with BCRL. The intervention was MLD. The primary outcomes were (1) volumetric changes, (2) adverse events. Secondary outcomes were (1) function, (2) subjective sensations, (3) QoL, (4) cost of care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected data on three volumetric outcomes. (1) LE (lymphedema) volume was defined as the amount of excess fluid left in the arm after treatment, calculated as volume in mL of affected arm post-treatment minus unaffected arm post-treatment. (2) Volume reduction was defined as the amount of fluid reduction in mL from before to after treatment calculated as the pretreatment LE volume of the affected arm minus the post-treatment LE volume of the affected arm. (3) Per cent reduction was defined as the proportion of fluid reduced relative to the baseline excess volume, calculated as volume reduction divided by baseline LE volume multiplied by 100. We entered trial data into Review Manger 5.2 (RevMan), pooled data using a fixed-effect model, and analyzed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We also explored subgroups to determine whether mild BCRL compared to moderate or severe BCRL, and BCRL less than a year compared to more than a year was associated with a better response to MLD. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials were included. Based on similar designs, trials clustered in three categories.(1) MLD + standard physiotherapy versus standard physiotherapy (one trial) showed significant improvements in both groups from baseline but no significant between-groups differences for per cent reduction.(2) MLD + compression bandaging versus compression bandaging (two trials) showed significant per cent reductions of 30% to 38.6% for compression bandaging alone, and an additional 7.11% reduction for MLD (MD 7.11%, 95% CI 1.75% to 12.47%; two RCTs; 83 participants). Volume reduction was borderline significant (P = 0.06). LE volume was not significant. Subgroup analyses was significant showing that participants with mild-to-moderate BCRL were better responders to MLD than were moderate-to-severe participants.(3) MLD + compression therapy versus nonMLD treatment + compression therapy (three trials) were too varied to pool. One of the trials compared compression sleeve plus MLD to compression sleeve plus pneumatic pump. Volume reduction was statistically significant favoring MLD (MD 47.00 mL, 95% CI 15.25 mL to 78.75 mL; 1 RCT; 24 participants), per cent reduction was borderline significant (P=0.07), and LE volume was not significant. A second trial compared compression sleeve plus MLD to compression sleeve plus self-administered simple lymphatic drainage (SLD), and was significant for MLD for LE volume (MD -230.00 mL, 95% CI -450.84 mL to -9.16 mL; 1 RCT; 31 participants) but not for volume reduction or per cent reduction. A third trial of MLD + compression bandaging versus SLD + compression bandaging was not significant (P = 0.10) for per cent reduction, the only outcome measured (MD 11.80%, 95% CI -2.47% to 26.07%, 28 participants).MLD was well tolerated and safe in all trials.Two trials measured function as range of motion with conflicting results. One trial reported significant within-groups gains for both groups, but no between-groups differences. The other trial reported there were no significant within-groups gains and did not report between-groups results. One trial measured strength and reported no significant changes in either group.Two trials measured QoL, but results were not usable because one trial did not report any results, and the other trial did not report between-groups results.Four trials measured sensations such as pain and heaviness. Overall, the sensations were significantly reduced in both groups over baseline, but with no between-groups differences. No trials reported cost of care.Trials were small ranging from 24 to 45 participants. Most trials appeared to randomize participants adequately. However, in four trials the person measuring the swelling knew what treatment the participants were receiving, and this could have biased results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: MLD is safe and may offer additional benefit to compression bandaging for swelling reduction. Compared to individuals with moderate-to-severe BCRL, those with mild-to-moderate BCRL may be the ones who benefit from adding MLD to an intensive course of treatment with compression bandaging. This finding, however, needs to be confirmed by randomized data.In trials where MLD and sleeve were compared with a nonMLD treatment and sleeve, volumetric outcomes were inconsistent within the same trial. Research is needed to identify the most clinically meaningful volumetric measurement, to incorporate newer technologies in LE assessment, and to assess other clinically relevant outcomes such as fibrotic tissue formation.Findings were contradictory for function (range of motion), and inconclusive for quality of life.For symptoms such as pain and heaviness, 60% to 80% of participants reported feeling better regardless of which treatment they received.One-year follow-up suggests that once swelling had been reduced, participants were likely to keep their swelling down if they continued to use a custom-made sleeve.

Self-care status, symptom burden, and reported infections in individuals with lower-extremity primary lymphedema.

PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were (a) to evaluate self-care, symptom burden, and reported infections among individuals with lower-extremity primary lymphedema; (b) to examine the differences in self-care, symptom burden, and reported infections between individuals with unilateral and those with bilateral lower-extremity primary lymphedema; and (c) to examine the associations among self-care status, symptom burden, and reported infections in individuals with lower-extremity primary lymphedema. DESIGN: A secondary data analysis was used. Data were collected from a cross-sectional survey study supported by the National Lymphedema Network from March 2006 through January 2010. The surveys were available both online and in hard copy in order to increase accessibility. METHODS: Descriptive statistics were conducted and associations between variables were assessed using Mann-Whitney tests and chi-square tests of independence. Multiple logistic regression was used to test for associations while controlling for potentially confounding variables. FINDINGS: A total of 803 participants reported having lower-extremity primary lymphedema. The majority of the participants were female (82.9%), White (74.2%), and from the United States (90.7%). Approximately two thirds of the respondents conducted some home daily lymphedema self-care. Over half of the respondents reported experiencing symptom burden and 44.8% reported at least one episode of infection. Compared to individuals with unilateral lower-extremity primary lymphedema, individuals with bilateral lower-extremity lymphedema were more likely to conduct skin care (p = .004), use alternative medications (p = .005), more frequently reported symptoms (p < .05), and more likely to report at least one episode of infection (p = .002). Respondents who reported use of compression garments also were less likely to have self-reported pain (p = .002), poor range of motion (p = .026), and numbness (p = .001). Participants who reported exercising also were less likely to have self-reported pain (p = .003). Participants who reported at least one episode of infection also reported experiencing more symptoms (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with lower-extremity primary lymphedema experienced substantial symptom burden and infection episodes. Significant associations were identified among self-care, symptom burden, and reported infections. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The findings support the need for clinicians to educate patients with lower-extremity primary lymphedema regarding the importance of self-care, symptom management, and infection control. It is critically important for clinicians to evaluate symptom burden and reduce infections in individuals with lower-extremity primary lymphedema.

Factors Associated with Reported Infection and Lymphedema Symptoms among Individuals with Extremity Lymphedema.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine factors associated with reported infection and symptoms among individuals with extremity lymphedema. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was used. METHODS: Data were collected from a survey supported by the National Lymphedema Network from March 2006 through January 2010. A total of 1837 participants reported having extremity lymphedema. Logistic regression analyses were used. FINDINGS: Factors associated with reported infection among individuals with extremity lymphedema included male gender, decreased annual household income, decreased self-care, self-report of heaviness, and lower extremity as opposed to upper extremity. Factors associated with symptoms included infection, decreased self-care, lower knowledge level of self-care, decreased annual household income, and presence of secondary lower extremity lymphedema. CONCLUSIONS/CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Select factors of income, self-care status, and site of lymphedema were associated with increased occurrence of infection and symptoms among individuals with extremity lymphedema. Longitudinal studies are needed to identify risk factors contributing to infections and symptoms in individuals with lymphedema.