Treatment of traumatic secondary lymphedema of the upper extremity

Abstract Background Postmastectomy secondary lymphedema can cause substantial morbidity. However, few studies have investigated longitudinal quality of life (QoL) outcomes in patients with postmastectomy lymphedema, especially with regard to surgical versus nonoperative management. This study prospectively investigated QoL in surgically versus nonsurgically managed patients with postmastectomy upper extremity lymphedema. Methods This was a longitudinal cohort study of breast cancer-related lymphedema patients at a single institution, between February 2017 and January 2020. Lymphedema Quality of Life Instrument (LyQLI) and RAND-36 QoL instrument were used. Mann–Whitney U and Fisher's exact tests were used for descriptive statistics. Wilcoxon's signed-rank testing and linear modeling were used to analyze longitudinal changes in QoL. Results Thirty-two lymphedema patients were recruited to the study (20 surgical and 12 nonsurgical). Surgical and nonsurgical cohorts did not significantly differ in clinical/demographic characteristics or baseline QoL scores, but at the 12-month time point surgical patients had significantly greater LyQLI overall health scores than nonsurgical patients (79.3 vs. 58.3, p = 0.02), as well as higher composite RAND-36 physical (68.5 vs. 38.3, p = 0.04), and mental (77.0 vs. 52.7, p = 0.02) scores. Furthermore, LyQLI overall health scores significantly improved over time in surgical patients (60.0 at baseline vs. 79.3 at 12 months, p = 0.04). Besides surgical treatment, race, and age were also found to significantly impact QoL on multivariable analysis. Conclusion Our results suggest that when compared with nonoperative management, surgery improved QoL for chronic, secondary upper extremity lymphedema patients within 12-month postoperatively. Our results also suggested that insurance status may have influenced decisions to undergo lymphedema surgery. Further study is needed to investigate the various sociodemographic factors that were also found to impact QoL outcomes in these lymphedema patients.

Download Full-text

MRI staging of upper extremity secondary lymphedema: correlation with clinical measurements

European Radiology ◽

10.1007/s00330-020-06790-0 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 30 (8) ◽

pp. 4686-4694 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Geunwon Kim ◽

Martin P. Smith ◽

Kevin J. Donohoe ◽

Anna Rose Johnson ◽

Dhruv Singhal ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Upper Extremity ◽

Secondary Lymphedema ◽

Mri Staging ◽

Clinical Measurements

Download Full-text

Treatment of Traumatic Secondary Lymphedema of the Upper Extremity

Annals of Plastic Surgery ◽

10.1097/00000637-198111000-00009 ◽

1981 ◽

Vol 7 (5) ◽

pp. 411-414 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Bruce G. Freeman ◽

Alfred Berger

Keyword(s):

Upper Extremity ◽

Secondary Lymphedema

Download Full-text

Preoperative Assessment of Upper Extremity Secondary Lymphedema

Cancers ◽

10.3390/cancers12010135 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 12 (1) ◽

pp. 135 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Itay Wiser ◽

Babak J. Mehrara ◽

Michelle Coriddi ◽

Elizabeth Kenworthy ◽

Michele Cavalli ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Upper Extremity ◽

Preoperative Assessment ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Cancer Center ◽

Occult Metastasis ◽

Axillary Vein ◽

Limb Volume ◽

Secondary Lymphedema ◽

Highly Sensitive ◽

Volume Measurements

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the most commonly used preoperative assessment tools for patients undergoing surgical treatment for secondary upper extremity lymphedema. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study performed at a tertiary cancer center specializing in the treatment of secondary lymphedema. Lymphedema evaluation included limb volume measurements, bio-impedance, indocyanine green lymphography, lymphoscintigraphy, magnetic resonance angiography, lymphedema life impact scale (LLIS) and upper limb lymphedema 27 (ULL-27) questionnaires. Results: 118 patients were evaluated. Limb circumference underestimated lymphedema compared to limb volume. Bioimpedance (L-Dex) scores highly correlated with limb volume excess (r2 = 0.714, p < 0.001). L-Dex scores were highly sensitive and had a high positive predictive value for diagnosing lymphedema in patients with a volume excess of 10% or more. ICG was highly sensitive in identifying lymphedema. Lymphoscintigraphy had an overall low sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of lymphedema. MRA was highly sensitive in diagnosing lymphedema and adipose hypertrophy as well as useful in identifying axillary vein obstruction and occult metastasis. Patients with minimal limb volume difference still demonstrated significantly impaired quality of life. Conclusion: Preoperative assessment of lymphedema is complex and requires multimodal assessment. MRA, L-Dex, ICG, and PROMs are all valuable components of preoperative assessment.

Download Full-text

Experience of using an adjustable inextensible compression bandage in a patient with secondary lymphedema of the right upper limb

Ambulatornaya khirurgiya = Ambulatory Surgery (Russia) ◽

10.21518/1995-1477-2021-18-1-121-126 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 18 (1) ◽

pp. 121-126

Author(s):

G. V. Yarovenko ◽

S. E. Katorkin

Keyword(s):

Clinical Practice ◽

Upper Extremity ◽

Compression Therapy ◽

Ease Of Use ◽

Medical Rehabilitation ◽

Compression Bandage ◽

Histopathological Response ◽

Regional Lymph Nodes ◽

Secondary Lymphedema ◽

The Right

Introduction. Secondary upper-extremity lymphedema is most commonly caused by lymphadenectomy and radiotherapy (RT) of regional lymph nodes. Lymphatic edema differ in the fact that they lead to fibrotic changes in tissues, as the lymph contains up to 2–4% of protein, which causes a specific histopathological response. Proteins, as well as tissue protein-polysaccharide complexes, undergo transformations leading to pathological collagenization, and then to hyalinization and sclerosis. A vicious circle of pathological processes stemming from biophysical and chemical changes in proteins and polysaccharides with metabolic disorders occurs. Compression therapy is the most important component of the fight against both upper- and lower-extremity edema of various origins at any stage of the disease.The aim is to assess the postoperative stabilization of the upper-extremity edema state due to the patient’s self-bandaging using inelastic bandages and the possibility of personalized adjustment of pressure to be applied at the required level. The article provides indications for the use of an adjustable inelastic compression bandage to stabilize edema, and reviews a clinical example of its postoperative use in a patient with grade 4 secondary right upper-extremity lymphedema. Particular emphasis is placed on the versatility of adjustable inelastic compression bandage and the expediency of its widespread use in clinical practice.Conclusion. Simplicity and ease of use with an option to self-adjust and maintain the stable level of therapeutic pressure throughout the entire period of medical rehabilitation, as well as minimization of doctor’s involvement, allow us to recommend the adjustable inelastic compression bandage for effective use in wide clinical practice.

Download Full-text

Combining Values

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2002.marapr01 ◽

2002 ◽

Vol 7 (2) ◽

pp. 1-4, 12 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Christopher R. Brigham

Keyword(s):

Lower Extremity ◽

Upper Extremity ◽

Evaluation Method ◽

Proximal Phalanx ◽

Common Error ◽

The Third ◽

Whole Person ◽

Impairment Ratings ◽

Upper Extremity Impairment ◽

The Individual

Abstract To account for the effects of multiple impairments, evaluating physicians must provide a summary value that combines multiple impairments so the whole person impairment is equal to or less than the sum of all the individual impairment values. A common error is to add values that should be combined and typically results in an inflated rating. The Combined Values Chart in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition, includes instructions that guide physicians about combining impairment ratings. For example, impairment values within a region generally are combined and converted to a whole person permanent impairment before combination with the results from other regions (exceptions include certain impairments of the spine and extremities). When they combine three or more values, physicians should select and combine the two lowest values; this value is combined with the third value to yield the total value. Upper extremity impairment ratings are combined based on the principle that a second and each succeeding impairment applies not to the whole unit (eg, whole finger) but only to the part that remains (eg, proximal phalanx). Physicians who combine lower extremity impairments usually use only one evaluation method, but, if more than one method is used, the physician should use the Combined Values Chart.

Download Full-text

Impairment Tutorial: Functionally Limiting Upper Extremity Pain: Controversies in Impairment Rating

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2003.sepoct02 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 8 (5) ◽

pp. 4-12

Author(s):

Lorne Direnfeld ◽

James Talmage ◽

Christopher Brigham

Keyword(s):

Upper Extremity ◽

Radicular Pain ◽

Illness Behavior ◽

Orthopedic Surgeon ◽

First Case ◽

Clinical Presentations ◽

Whole Person ◽

Physical Examinations ◽

Upper Extremity Impairment ◽

The Individual

Abstract This article was prompted by the submission of two challenging cases that exemplify the decision processes involved in using the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides). In both cases, the physical examinations were normal with no evidence of illness behavior, but, based on their histories and clinical presentations, the patients reported credible symptoms attributable to specific significant injuries. The dilemma for evaluators was whether to adhere to the AMA Guides, as written, or to attempt to rate impairment in these rare cases. In the first case, the evaluating neurologist used alternative approaches to define impairment based on the presence of thoracic outlet syndrome and upper extremity pain, as if there were a nerve injury. An orthopedic surgeon who evaluated the case did not base impairment on pain and used the upper extremity chapters in the AMA Guides. The impairment ratings determined using either the nervous system or upper extremity chapters of the AMA Guides resulted in almost the same rating (9% vs 8% upper extremity impairment), and either value converted to 5% whole person permanent impairment. In the second case, the neurologist evaluated the individual for neuropathic pain (9% WPI), and the orthopedic surgeon rated the patient as Diagnosis-related estimates Cervical Category II for nonverifiable radicular pain (5% to 8% WPI).

Download Full-text

Spinal Impairment Evaluation: Fifth Edition Changes

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2001.janfeb01 ◽

2001 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

pp. 1-3

Author(s):

Robert H. Haralson

Keyword(s):

Spinal Cord ◽

Lower Extremity ◽

Range Of Motion ◽

Upper Extremity ◽

Spinal Cord Injuries ◽

Clinical Findings ◽

Fourth Edition ◽

Treatment Results ◽

Standard Terminology ◽

Made In

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in November 2000 and contains major changes from its predecessor. In the Fourth Edition, all musculoskeletal evaluation and rating was described in a single chapter. In the Fifth Edition, this information has been divided into three separate chapters: Upper Extremity (13), Lower Extremity (14), and Spine (15). This article discusses changes in the spine chapter. The Models for rating spinal impairment now are called Methods. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, has reverted to standard terminology for spinal regions in the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) Method, and both it and the Range of Motion (ROM) Method now reference cervical, thoracic, and lumbar. Also, the language requiring the use of the DRE, rather than the ROM Method has been strengthened. The biggest change in the DRE Method is that evaluation should include the treatment results. Unfortunately, the Fourth Edition's philosophy regarding when and how to rate impairment using the DRE Model led to a number of problems, including the same rating of all patients with radiculopathy despite some true differences in outcomes. The term differentiator was abandoned and replaced with clinical findings. Significant changes were made in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injuries, and evaluators should become familiar with these and other changes in the Fifth Edition.

Download Full-text

Quick Reference: Checklist for Upper Extremity Impairment Evaluations

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.1999.novdec06 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 4 (6) ◽

pp. 14-15

Author(s):

James B. Talmage

Keyword(s):

Upper Extremity ◽

Upper Extremity Impairment

Download Full-text

Evaluating Shoulder Impairment

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.1998.sepoct01 ◽

1998 ◽

Vol 3 (5) ◽

pp. 1-3

Author(s):

Richard T. Katz ◽

Sankar Perraraju

Keyword(s):

Peripheral Nerve ◽

Upper Extremity ◽

Sensory Loss ◽

Motor Deficits ◽

Nerve Lesion ◽

Fourth Edition ◽

Specific Patient ◽

Industrial Medicine ◽

Shoulder Motion ◽

Upper Extremity Impairment

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fourth Edition, offers several categories to describe impairment in the shoulder, including shoulder amputation, abnormal shoulder motion, peripheral nerve disorders, subluxation/dislocation, and joint arthroplasty. This article clarifies appropriate methods for rating shoulder impairment in a specific patient, particularly with reference to the AMA Guides, Section 3.1j, Shoulder, Section 3.1k, Impairment of the Upper Extremity Due to Peripheral Nerve Disorders, and Section 3.1m, Impairment Due to Other Disorders of the Upper Extremity. A table shows shoulder motions and associated degrees of motion and can be used in assessing abnormal range of motion. Assessments of shoulder impairment due to peripheral nerve lesion also requires assessment of sensory loss (or presence of nerve pain) or motor deficits, and these may be categorized to the level of the spinal nerves (C5 to T1). Table 23 is useful regarding impairment from persistent joint subluxation or dislocation, and Table 27 can be helpful in assessing impairment of the upper extremity after arthroplasty of specific bones of joints. Although inter-rater reliability has been reasonably good, the validity of the upper extremity impairment rating has been questioned, and further research in industrial medicine and physical disability is required.

Download Full-text