Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Efficacy, safety of and adherence to adjustable compression wraps in the control phase of breast cancer-related lymphedema: a randomized controlled trial [with consumer summary]
da Silva JMP, Araujo RDD, de Aguiar SS, Fabro EAN, Pinto MVDM, Thuler LCS, Bergmann A
Clinical Rehabilitation 2024 Nov;38(11):1481-1494
clinical trial
6/10 [Eligibility criteria: No; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy, safety, and adherence to using adjustable compression wraps (ACWs) for upper limb volume control in women with breast cancer-related lymphedema. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized controlled trial at a reference hospital for breast cancer treatment in Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: Women in control phase of the breast cancer-related lymphedema. INTERVENTIONS: Compared use of ACWs versus compressive mesh. MAIN MEASURES: Evaluated before treatment, at 30 days, and 6 months after initiating therapy. The primary outcome was the change in excess limb volume. Secondary outcomes included adherence, incidence of adverse events, functionality, quality of life, and hand grip. Statistical analysis involved calculating the effect size (ES) with a 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Were included 71 women with mean excess limb volume of 321.79 mL (+/- 194.98). In the 30-day analysis (Time 1), a reduction of 37.6 mL in volume was observed only in the ACW group (p = 0.041, ES 0.20), with improved functionality (p = 0.013, ES 0.22). In the six months analysis (Time 2), the compressive mesh group increased by 2.48% in volume (p = 0.023, ES 0.26) and demonstrated improvement functionality (p = 0.036, ES 0.27). Mild adverse events and satisfactory adherence were observed. However, in the intergroup comparison, no statistically significant difference was observed for any evaluated outcome-excess volume, incidence of adverse events, adherence, hand grip, quality of life, and functionality between the groups (p > 0.05) at both times. CONCLUSIONS: Both compression therapies achieved satisfactory adherence, were safe, effective and equivalent for controlling limb volume in breast cancer-related lymphedema.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help