Damstra Robert J, Partsch Hugo
Department of Dermatology, Phlebology and Lymphology, Nij Smellinghe Hospital, Drachten, The Netherlands.
J Vasc Surg. 2009 May;49(5):1256-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2008.12.018.
Short stretch bandages are very effective in the initial management of arm lymphedema. However, no studies to date have measured the pressure required to achieve specific amounts of volume reduction. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a difference between low and high-pressure bandaging in terms of therapeutically intended volume reduction of the compressed arm.
Experimental, randomized and comparative study with two study-groups consisting of high and low initial interface pressure bandages. Thirty-six hospitalized patients in Nij Smellinghe hospital suffering from moderate to severe unilateral breast cancer-related lymphedema not responsive to outpatient treatment were included. Bilateral arm volume was measured by inverse water volumetry before, after two hours and after 24 hours of bandaging. The amount of edema was calculated by subtracting the volume of the diseased arm from that of the contralateral side. Sub-bandage pressure was measured after bandage application and two hours later. Bandages were then re-applied and the pressure was measured again. Twenty-four hours later, the pressure measurement was repeated and bandages were removed for final volumetry. Patients were randomized into two groups: group A received low pressure bandages (20-30 mm Hg) and group B received high pressure bandages (44-58 mm Hg). The main outcome measures were reduction of arm volume and edema volume in the affected arm in both study groups. Secondary outcome parameters were changes in sub-bandage pressure and patient comfort.
Median arm volume reduction after two and 24 hours was 104.5 mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 51.2-184.2) (-2.5%) (P < .0001) and 217 mL (95% CI, 143.9-280.2) (-5.2%) (P < .01) for group A and 56.5 mL (95% CI, -2.7-123.1) (n.s.) and 167.5 mL (95% CI, 105.2-316.1) (-4.2%) (P < .01) for group B, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the volume changes in group A and group B. After 24 hours, edema decreased by median percentage of 9.2% in group A and 4.8% in group B (n.s.). Bandages in group A were better tolerated. The sub-bandage pressure drop in the first two hours was between 41% and 48% in both treatment groups at both measuring sites. After 24 hours, the pressure drop was between 55% and 63%. No proximal swelling above the bandage was observed.
Inelastic, multi-layer, multi-component compression bandages with lower pressure (20-30 mm Hg) are better tolerated and achieve the same amount of arm volume reduction as bandages applied with higher pressure (44-58 mm Hg) in the first 24 hours.
短弹力绷带在手臂淋巴水肿的初始治疗中非常有效。然而,迄今为止尚无研究测量实现特定体积减少量所需的压力。本研究的目的是确定在压缩手臂的治疗性预期体积减少方面,低压绷带和高压绷带之间是否存在差异。
进行实验性、随机对照研究,分为两个研究组,分别使用高初始界面压力绷带和低初始界面压力绷带。纳入了36名在奈斯梅灵医院住院的患者,他们患有中度至重度单侧乳腺癌相关淋巴水肿,门诊治疗无效。在绷带包扎前、包扎两小时后和24小时后,通过排水体积法测量双侧手臂体积。通过将患侧手臂的体积从对侧手臂的体积中减去来计算水肿量。在包扎后和两小时后测量绷带下压力。然后重新包扎绷带并再次测量压力。24小时后,重复压力测量并拆除绷带进行最终体积测量。患者被随机分为两组:A组接受低压绷带(20 - 30 mmHg),B组接受高压绷带(44 - 58 mmHg)。主要观察指标是两个研究组中患侧手臂的体积减少和水肿体积减少。次要观察参数是绷带下压力的变化和患者舒适度。
A组在两小时和24小时后的手臂体积减少中位数分别为104.5 mL(95%置信区间[CI],51.2 - 184.2)(-2.5%)(P <.0001)和217 mL(95%CI,143.9 - 280.2)(-5.2%)(P <.01),B组分别为56.5 mL(95%CI,-2.7 - 123.1)(无统计学意义)和167.5 mL(95%CI,105.2 - 316.1)(-4.2%)(P <.01)。A组和B组的体积变化之间无统计学显著差异。24小时后,A组水肿中位数下降百分比为9.2%,B组为4.8%(无统计学意义)。A组的绷带耐受性更好。在两个测量部位,两个治疗组在前两小时的绷带下压力下降均在41%至48%之间。24小时后,压力下降在55%至63%之间。未观察到绷带上方的近端肿胀。
在最初24小时内,较低压力(20 - 30 mmHg)的无弹性、多层、多成分压缩绷带耐受性更好,并且与较高压力(44 - 58 mmHg)的绷带实现相同程度的手臂体积减少。