Effectiveness of Lymphedema Prevention Programs With Compression Garment After Lymphatic Node Dissection in Breast Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.
Maria J Nadal Castells, Eliot Ramirez Mirabal, Jordi Cuartero Archs and 4 others
PMID 36188772WHAT IT FOUND
Adding prophylactic compression garments to standard education and exercise did not significantly lower lymphedema rates at 2 years compared to standard care alone.
However, patients who wore the garment daily for 8 hours in the first 3 months had significantly lower incidence than those who did not.
Key findings
01The experimental program (standard care plus compression garment) showed no significant difference in lymphedema incidence at 2 years compared to the conventional program (standard care alone).
02In the experimental group, patients who adhered to daily compression garment use for the first 3 months had a significantly lower incidence of lymphedema at 2 years than non-adherent patients.
03Adherence to daily compression garment use decreased significantly over time, from 78.1% at the end of the initial program to 51.5% at 2 years.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study had a relatively small sample size (70 enrolled, 65 completed). Adherence to home-based interventions (exercise and compression garment use) was difficult to objectively monitor. The open-label design means participants knew which treatment they were receiving, which could influence adherence behaviors. The lack of a true 'no intervention' control group makes it difficult to isolate the specific effect of the compression garment from the benefits of the educational and exercise components common to both arms.
Declared interests
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the subgroup finding of lower lymphedema rates in highly adherent patients as proof that compression garments work for everyone. The primary outcome was null, meaning the overall group receiving garments did not benefit more than the group receiving standard care alone. The benefit was only seen in the subset of patients who managed to wear the garment daily for the first 3 months, a level of adherence that was difficult to sustain over time.