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.

Working in partnership with patients to promote concordance with compression bandaging.

Patients may be tempted to remove their compression bandages if they find them uncomfortable, particularly at night. Working in partnership with patients to select bandages that they find tolerable and then applying them in a way that promotes comfort will encourage concordance with this therapy.

Assessment of health-related quality of life in patients with lymphedema of the lower limb.

The purpose of this study was to examine the use of a number of tools in the evaluation of health-related quality of life in patients with lower limb lymphedema, and to determine the consequences of cancer history and concurrent leg ulceration. Patients in one health trust having lower limb lymphedema were identified and interviewed at entry and after 24 weeks. The short form-36 (SF-36), modified Barthel scale, McGill short form pain questionnaire, and Euroqol were administered at both time points. Of the 164 (median age=76.9 years, 70.7% women) patients who comprised the study population, 15.2% had a history of cancer and 30.4% had coexisting current leg ulceration. Internal consistencies were high for all scales (Cronbach's alpha >0.80). There were high ceiling effects for a number of SF-36 scores, and high floor effects in these and the McGill short form pain questionnaire, scales. Despite these limitations, there was strong evidence that treatment led to significant improvements in six of eight scores of the SF-36, three of three scores of the McGill short form pain questionnaire and the modified Barthel scale (all p<0.05). The improvement in physical functioning was significantly greater for patients who entered the study with a leg ulcer (mean different=9.1, 95% confidence interval 2.1-16.1, p=0.011). Patients treated with compression bandaging had significantly greater improvements for physical functioning (10.2) than those treated with compression hosiery (-1.5) or no treatment (-2.0), p=0.001. Of the tools assessed, the SF-36, appears to be the most appropriate for use in this patient group.

Lymphoedema: estimating the size of the problem.

Lymphoedema is a problem frequently encountered by professionals working in palliative care. This article reviews the evidence on the magnitude of the problem of lymphoedema in the general population and provides evidence on specific high risk groups within it. Prevalence is a good indicator of the burden of disease for chronic problems such as lymphoedema, as it indicates the numbers of patients who require care. Incidence is indicative of changes in the causes of lymphoedema and the success of any prevention programmes. Both are important means of assessing the current level of need and the potential for the changing needs in managing this condition. Problems exist in all studies in relation to precise definitions of lymphoedema, inconsistent measures to assess differential diagnosis and poorly defined populations. While there is some evidence of high rates in relation to breast cancer therapy, the total burden of lymphoedema in the general population is largely unknown.

A phenomenological study of the lived experiences of people with lymphoedema.

Lymphoedema occurs in all age groups and is caused by lymphatic insufficiency. It is associated with a wide range of cancer- and non-cancer-related conditions. Researchers have explored the impact of lymphoedema on quality of life but most studies have focused on breast cancer-related lymphoedema or used specific quality of life tools. The study reported here used a phenomenological approach to explore the lived experience of 15 individuals with different types of lymphoedema. Findings highlight the uncertainty surrounding their diagnosis, the difficulties they experienced in accessing appropriate treatment and ways in which they dealt with having lymphoedema. Recommendations are made highlighting the need for increased awareness of lymphoedema and the importance of wider consideration of the emotional and psychosocial dimensions of this chronic condition.