The Effects of Complex Decongestive Physiotherapy Applications on Lower Extremity Circumference and Volume in Patients with Lipedema

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melek Volkan-Yazıcı ◽  
Gokhan Yazici ◽  
Murat Esmer
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Complex Decongestive Physiotherapy

Effectiveness of modified complex decongestive physiotherapy for preventing lower extremity lymphedema after radical surgery for cervical cancer: a randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 757-763 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xia Wang ◽  
Yan Ding ◽  
Hui-Yuan Cai ◽  
Jing You ◽  
Fang-Qin Fan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Health Education ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Radical Hysterectomy ◽  
Radical Surgery ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Pelvic Lymphadenectomy ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy ◽  
Complex Decongestive Physiotherapy

BackgroundThere is a lack of evidence in support of any prophylactic measure to prevent secondary lower extremity lymphedema after radical hysterectomy among patients with cervical cancer. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of modified complex decongestive physiotherapy in reducing the risk of secondary lower extremity lymphedema after radical surgery.MethodsA randomized single-blind clinical trial was conducted in 120 patients with cervical cancer who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy between January 2016 and April 2017 in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China. Participants were randomly assigned to a modified complex decongestive physiotherapy intervention group (n=60) or control group (n=60). The intervention group received a modified complex decongestive physiotherapy program, which included manual lymph drainage, compression hosiery, regular exercise, and health education. The control group only received a health education program. The main outcome was the incidence of secondary lower extremity lymphedema.ResultsA total of 117 patients with cervical cancer completed a 1-year follow-up. Twenty-eight (23.9%) patients developed secondary lower extremity lymphedema (20 (34.5%) patients in the control group and 8 (13.6%) in the intervention group). The incidence of secondary lower extremity lymphedema was significantly higher in the control group than in the intervention group (p=0.008; OR 0.30 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.75). The median percentage of excess volume was significantly less in the intervention group (2.1%, IQR 0.5–3.4%) than in the control group (2.96%, IQR 1.1–4.98%); (p=0.042). The mean (SD) onset time of lymphedema was 8 (2.00) months vs 4.6 (2.82) months in the intervention and control groups, respectively (p=0.004).ConclusionsThis randomized trial showed that modified complex decongestive physiotherapy is effective for preventing lower extremity lymphedema in patients with cervical cancer after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy.

Combining Values

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-4, 12 ◽  
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.

Quick Reference: Chapter 3: The Musculoskeletal System and Chapter 4: The Nervous System

2000 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 4-4
Keyword(s):  
Nervous System ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Musculoskeletal System ◽  
Multistep Method ◽  
Manual Muscle Testing ◽  
Motor Deficits ◽  
Lower Extremity Weakness ◽  
Residual Symptoms ◽  
Muscle Testing ◽  
Almost All

Abstract Lesions of the peripheral nervous system (PNS), whether due to injury or illness, commonly result in residual symptoms and signs and, hence, permanent impairment. The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fourth Edition, divides PNS deficits into sensory and motor and includes pain in the former. This article, which regards rating sensory and motor deficits of the lower extremities, is continued from the March/April 2000 issue of The Guides Newsletter. Procedures for rating extremity neural deficits are described in Chapter 3, The Musculoskeletal System, section 3.1k for the upper extremity and sections 3.2k and 3.2l for the lower limb. Sensory deficits and dysesthesia are both disorders of sensation, but the former can be interpreted to mean diminished or absent sensation (hypesthesia or anesthesia) Dysesthesia implies abnormal sensation in the absence of a stimulus or unpleasant sensation elicited by normal touch. Sections 3.2k and 3.2d indicate that almost all partial motor loss in the lower extremity can be rated using Table 39. In addition, Section 4.4b and Table 21 indicate the multistep method used for spinal and some additional nerves and be used alternatively to rate lower extremity weakness in general. Partial motor loss in the lower extremity is rated by manual muscle testing, which is described in the AMA Guides in Section 3.2d.

Q&A: Multiple Lower Extremity Impairments and AMA Guides, Third Edition, Revised

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 15-16
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Kathryn Mueller ◽  
Steven Demeter ◽  
Randolph Soo Hoo
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity

Spinal Impairment Evaluation: Fifth Edition Changes

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.

Replantation of the Lower Extremity

1983 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhong-Wei Chen ◽  
Bing-Fang Zeng
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document