Activity-Oriented Antiedema Proprioceptive Therapy (TAPA) for Shoulder Mobility Improvement in Women with Upper Limb Lymphedema Secondary to Breast Cancer: A Multicenter Controlled Clinical Trial

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background: Lymphedema, secondary to breast cancer (BCRL), is the abnormal accumulation of protein-rich fluid in the interstitium caused by a malfunction of the lymphatic system. It causes swelling, deficiencies in upper limb functions and structures, sensory pain and emotional alterations, which have a chronic course and affect the upper limb’s functionality. This study aims to verify the efficacy and efficiency in the upper limb´s functionality of a protocolized experimental approach based on occupational therapy, TAPA (activity-oriented proprioceptive antiedema therapy), in the rehabilitation of BCRL in stages I and II, comparing it with the conservative treatment considered as the standard, complex decongestive therapy (CDT), through a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Methods: a randomized and prospective clinical trial was conducted with experimental and control groups. Women diagnosed with BCRL belonging to institutions in Córdoba and Aragon (Spain) participated. Sociodemographic variables and those related to the functionality of the affected upper limb were evaluated before and after the intervention. Results: The results showed statistically significant differences in the analysis of covariance performed for the variable joint balance of the shoulder´s external rotation (p = 0.045) that could be attributed to the intervention performed; however, the effect size was minimal (η2 ≤ 0.080). In the rest of the variables, no significant differences were found. Conclusions: TAPA may be an alternative to the conservative treatment of women with BCRL. It was shown to be just as effective for volume reduction and activity performance as CDT but more effective in improving external rotation in shoulder joint balance.

Related collections

Most cited references 48

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers.

Christopher J Ferguson (2009)

0 comments Cited 478 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches.

Dorcas E. Beaton, James G Wright, Jeffrey Katz (2005)

The purpose of this study was to develop a short, reliable, and valid measure of physical function and symptoms related to upper-limb musculoskeletal disorders by shortening the full, thirty-item DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) Outcome Measure. Three item-reduction techniques were used on the cross-sectional field-testing data derived from a study of 407 patients with various upper-limb conditions. These techniques were the concept-retention method, the equidiscriminative item-total correlation, and the item response theory (Rasch modeling). Three eleven-item scales were created. Data from a longitudinal cohort study in which the DASH questionnaire was administered to 200 patients with shoulder and wrist/hand disorders were then used to assess the reliability (Cronbach alpha and test-retest reliability) and validity (cross-sectional and longitudinal construct) of the three scales. Results were compared with those derived with the full DASH. The three versions were comparable with regard to their measurement properties. All had a Cronbach alpha of > or = 0.92 and an intraclass correlation coefficient of > or = 0.94. Evidence of construct validity was established (r > or = 0.64 with single-item indices of pain and function). The concept-retention method, the most subjective of the approaches to item reduction, ranked highest in terms of its similarity to the original DASH. The concept-retention version is named the QuickDASH. It contains eleven items and is similar with regard to scores and properties to the full DASH. A comparison of item-reduction approaches suggested that the retention of clinically sensible and important content produced a comparable, if not slightly better, instrument than did more statistically driven approaches.

0 comments Cited 345 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema: 2020 Consensus Document of the International Society of Lymphology.

(2020)

This International Society of Lymphology (ISL) Consensus Document is the latest revision of the 1995 Document for the evaluation and management of peripheral lymphedema (1). It is based upon modifications: [A] suggested and published following the 1997 XVI International Congress of Lymphology (ICL) in Madrid, Spain (2), discussed at the 1999 XVII ICL in Chennai, India (3), and considered confirmed at the 2000 (ISL) Executive Committee meeting in Hinterzarten, Germany (4); [B] derived from integration of discussions and written comments obtained during and following the 2001 XVIII ICL in Genoa, Italy as modified at the 2003 ISL Executive Committee meeting in Cordoba, Argentina (5); [C] suggested from comments, criticisms, and rebuttals as published in the December 2004 issue of Lymphology (6); [D] discussed in both the 2005 XX ICL in Salvador, Brazil and the 2007 XXI ICL in Shanghai, China and modified at the 2008 Executive Committee meeting in Naples, Italy (7,8); [E] modified from discussions and written comments from the 2009 XXII ICL in Sydney, Australia, the 2011 XXIII ICL in Malmö, Sweden, the 2012 Executive Committee Meetings (9); [F] discussions at the 2013 XXIV ICL in Rome, Italy, and the 2015 XXV ICL in San Francisco, USA, as well as multiple written comments and feedback from Executive Committee and other ISL members during the 2016 drafting (10); informal discussions at the XXVI ICL in Barcelona, Spain; and [G] discussions at a dedicated, focused Post-Congress session at the XXVII ICL in Iguazú, Argentina (2019) followed by additional written comments from the Executive Committee and others. The document attempts to amalgamate the broad spectrum of protocols and practices advocated worldwide for the diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema into a coordinated proclamation representing a "Consensus" of the international community based on various levels of evidence. The document is not meant to override individual clinical considerations for complex patients nor to stifle progress. It is also not meant to be a legal formulation from which variations define medical malpractice. The Society understands that in some clinics the method of treatment derives from national standards while in others access to medical equipment, technical expertise, and supplies is limited; therefore, the suggested treatments might be impractical. Adaptability and inclusiveness does come at the price that members can rightly be critical of what they see as vagueness or imprecision in definitions, qualifiers in the choice of words (e.g., the use of "may... perhaps... unclear", etc.) and mentions (albeit without endorsement) of treatment options supported by limited hard data. Most members are frustrated by the reality that NO treatment method has really undergone a satisfactory meta-analysis (let alone rigorous, randomized, stratified, long-term, controlled study). With this understanding, the absence of definitive answers and optimally conducted clinical trials, and with emerging technologies and new approaches and discoveries on the horizon, some degree of uncertainty, ambiguity, and flexibility along with dissatisfaction with current lymphedema evaluation and management is appropriate and to be expected. We continue to struggle to keep the document concise while balancing the need for depth and details. With these considerations in mind, we believe that this 2020 version presents a Consensus that embraces the entire ISL membership, rises above national standards, identifies and stimulates promising areas for future research, and represents the best judgment of the ISL membership on how to approach patients with peripheral lymphedema in the light of currently available evidence. Therefore, the document has been and should continue to be challenged and debated in the pages of Lymphology (e.g., as Letters to the Editor) and ideally will remain a continued focal point for robust discussion at local, national and international conferences in lymphology and related disciplines. We further anticipate as experience evolves and new ideas and technologies emerge that this "living document" will undergo further periodic revision and refinement as the practice and conceptual foundations of medicine and specifically lymphology change and advance.