Evaluation of Pressure-Applying Accuracy in Multilayer Bandaging Among Physiotherapists Who Treat Lymphedema.

BACKGROUND: Compression therapy is the only conservative treatment that has been shown to be effective for patients with lymphedema in randomized controlled trials. A commonly used classification system divides pressure into four categories ranging from mild to very strong. For lower limb edema, bandages with strong pressure were shown to be most effective. Recent studies indicate that many health care professionals use inadequate pressure. No study thus far has focused on therapists who are trained in lymphatic treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-seven physiotherapists trained in lymphatic treatment were recruited. Each participant received a questionnaire concerning their competence in compression bandaging. The subjects were asked to apply bandages using strong and medium pressure in two practical trials. Using a PicoPress® device, pressure was measured both directly after bandaging and 2 hours later; 75.68% of participants successfully applied the bandaging with moderate pressure, correctly at least once, and 62.16% managed to do so with high pressure. A trend in the results shows that the higher the sub-bandage pressure at the beginning, the more it dropped after 2 hours. There was high consistency in pressure application for strong and moderate pressure. No correlation was found between the parameters of the questionnaire and correct bandaging pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the physiotherapists were successful, at least once, in applying bandages with the proper amount of pressure. It is possible that the nature of the lymphatic treatment contributes to their success. Participants were most accurate in applying moderate pressure; however, it is unclear what impact this pressure has on a leg with lymphedema.

Vaginitis in a gynecologic practice in Israel: causes and risk factors.

BACKGROUND: Vaginal symptoms are a leading reason for a patient to visit her gynecologist. Little is known about the prevalence of the different causes of vaginitis and the risk factors for this entity in Israel. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of the main forms of vaginitis: vulvovaginal candidiasis, bacterial vaginosis, and trichomoniasis, in a gynecologic practice in Israel. METHODS: We evaluated 208 patients presenting with vaginal symptoms to a gynecologic clinic; 100 asymptomatic women who attended the clinic for routine check-up served as controls. Demographic, medical and gynecologic histories were obtained, and a pelvic examination was performed in all patients. Vaginal specimens were tested for pH and amine reaction, smeared for Gram-staining and cultured for yeasts and Trichomonas vaginalis. Bacterial vaginitis was diagnosed using the Nugent scoring system. Candida infection was diagnosed by microscopic examination and by culture. RESULTS: Candida spp. was the most common pathogen, documented by microscopy and culture in 35.5% of symptomatic women and 15% of asymptomatic controls (P < 0.001). Detection by culture only (negative microscopy) was documented in 18.7% of symptomatic patients and 15% of controls (P = 0.5). Bacterial vaginosis (Nugent score > or = 7) was diagnosed in 23.5% of patients and 13% of controls (P = 0.04). Trichomoniasis was present in 8.1% of symptomatic women and 4% of controls (P = 0.1). The main risk factors were antibiotic use for candidiasis and lack of use of oral contraception and condom use for trichomoniasis. CONCLUSION: Candida was by far the most common pathogen detected in our population. A statistically significant difference between patients and controls was noted for the prevalence of microscopically diagnosed candidiasis and bacterial vaginosis.