Satisfaction with a therapeutic sleeve for arm lymphedema secondary to breast cancer treatment: Controlled crossover trial

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Osório, F
Data de Publicação: 2017
Outros Autores: Ferro, L, Garrido, L, Henriques, A, Cruz, J, Fangueiro, C, Fougo, JL, Azevedo, A
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10216/111761
Resumo: Secondary arm lymphedema is a feared late iatrogenic side effect of breast cancer survivors with a negative impact on patient's self-image and quality of life. Its reported incidence is extremely variable, from 6% to 80%, as well as the effectiveness of the multimodal decongestive lymphedema therapy. In their daily life breast cancer survivors with lymphedema have few alternatives but to use a compressive sleeve. Concerned with the well-known low compliance to the daily use of traditional sleeves, we conducted a comparative study in a subgroup of our patients with lymphedema secondary to breast cancer treatment for the subjective assessment of PRADEX®, an innovative class 1 compression sleeve. Secondarily, we aimed to assess the non-inferiority of PRADEX® regarding subjective and objective measures of the severity of lymphedema. We studied 46 women with grade 1 secondary arm lymphedema, who used their usual sleeve and PRADEX® daily for 2 weeks each, in a crossover design. The new therapeutic sleeve was classified as having a better design and a better usability and comfort (more comfortable, thinner, fresher, softer, more flexible, comfortable, resistant to dirt and easier to dress and to wear). Women's subjective opinion about the severity of lymphedema favored their usual sleeve in detriment of PRADEX®, but this subjective feeling was contradicted by objective measurements of different perimeters of the arm at the beginning and at the end of the study. We concluded that the PRADEX® sleeve, not being worse in its compressive therapeutic efficacy, is much better with regard to patient comfort.
id RCAP_c3cc01e5f15fae3d8448e4e211f84348
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio-aberto.up.pt:10216/111761
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Satisfaction with a therapeutic sleeve for arm lymphedema secondary to breast cancer treatment: Controlled crossover trialBreast cancerCompression elastic sleeveSecondary arm lymphedema is a feared late iatrogenic side effect of breast cancer survivors with a negative impact on patient's self-image and quality of life. Its reported incidence is extremely variable, from 6% to 80%, as well as the effectiveness of the multimodal decongestive lymphedema therapy. In their daily life breast cancer survivors with lymphedema have few alternatives but to use a compressive sleeve. Concerned with the well-known low compliance to the daily use of traditional sleeves, we conducted a comparative study in a subgroup of our patients with lymphedema secondary to breast cancer treatment for the subjective assessment of PRADEX®, an innovative class 1 compression sleeve. Secondarily, we aimed to assess the non-inferiority of PRADEX® regarding subjective and objective measures of the severity of lymphedema. We studied 46 women with grade 1 secondary arm lymphedema, who used their usual sleeve and PRADEX® daily for 2 weeks each, in a crossover design. The new therapeutic sleeve was classified as having a better design and a better usability and comfort (more comfortable, thinner, fresher, softer, more flexible, comfortable, resistant to dirt and easier to dress and to wear). Women's subjective opinion about the severity of lymphedema favored their usual sleeve in detriment of PRADEX®, but this subjective feeling was contradicted by objective measurements of different perimeters of the arm at the beginning and at the end of the study. We concluded that the PRADEX® sleeve, not being worse in its compressive therapeutic efficacy, is much better with regard to patient comfort.Elsevier20172017-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10216/111761eng2444-866410.1016/j.pbj.2016.11.005Osório, FFerro, LGarrido, LHenriques, ACruz, JFangueiro, CFougo, JLAzevedo, Ainfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-11-29T14:50:37Zoai:repositorio-aberto.up.pt:10216/111761Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-20T00:09:50.219208Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Satisfaction with a therapeutic sleeve for arm lymphedema secondary to breast cancer treatment: Controlled crossover trial
title Satisfaction with a therapeutic sleeve for arm lymphedema secondary to breast cancer treatment: Controlled crossover trial
spellingShingle Satisfaction with a therapeutic sleeve for arm lymphedema secondary to breast cancer treatment: Controlled crossover trial
Osório, F
Breast cancer
Compression elastic sleeve
title_short Satisfaction with a therapeutic sleeve for arm lymphedema secondary to breast cancer treatment: Controlled crossover trial
title_full Satisfaction with a therapeutic sleeve for arm lymphedema secondary to breast cancer treatment: Controlled crossover trial
title_fullStr Satisfaction with a therapeutic sleeve for arm lymphedema secondary to breast cancer treatment: Controlled crossover trial
title_full_unstemmed Satisfaction with a therapeutic sleeve for arm lymphedema secondary to breast cancer treatment: Controlled crossover trial
title_sort Satisfaction with a therapeutic sleeve for arm lymphedema secondary to breast cancer treatment: Controlled crossover trial
author Osório, F
author_facet Osório, F
Ferro, L
Garrido, L
Henriques, A
Cruz, J
Fangueiro, C
Fougo, JL
Azevedo, A
author_role author
author2 Ferro, L
Garrido, L
Henriques, A
Cruz, J
Fangueiro, C
Fougo, JL
Azevedo, A
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Osório, F
Ferro, L
Garrido, L
Henriques, A
Cruz, J
Fangueiro, C
Fougo, JL
Azevedo, A
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Breast cancer
Compression elastic sleeve
topic Breast cancer
Compression elastic sleeve
description Secondary arm lymphedema is a feared late iatrogenic side effect of breast cancer survivors with a negative impact on patient's self-image and quality of life. Its reported incidence is extremely variable, from 6% to 80%, as well as the effectiveness of the multimodal decongestive lymphedema therapy. In their daily life breast cancer survivors with lymphedema have few alternatives but to use a compressive sleeve. Concerned with the well-known low compliance to the daily use of traditional sleeves, we conducted a comparative study in a subgroup of our patients with lymphedema secondary to breast cancer treatment for the subjective assessment of PRADEX®, an innovative class 1 compression sleeve. Secondarily, we aimed to assess the non-inferiority of PRADEX® regarding subjective and objective measures of the severity of lymphedema. We studied 46 women with grade 1 secondary arm lymphedema, who used their usual sleeve and PRADEX® daily for 2 weeks each, in a crossover design. The new therapeutic sleeve was classified as having a better design and a better usability and comfort (more comfortable, thinner, fresher, softer, more flexible, comfortable, resistant to dirt and easier to dress and to wear). Women's subjective opinion about the severity of lymphedema favored their usual sleeve in detriment of PRADEX®, but this subjective feeling was contradicted by objective measurements of different perimeters of the arm at the beginning and at the end of the study. We concluded that the PRADEX® sleeve, not being worse in its compressive therapeutic efficacy, is much better with regard to patient comfort.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017
2017-01-01T00:00:00Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10216/111761
url http://hdl.handle.net/10216/111761
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 2444-8664
10.1016/j.pbj.2016.11.005
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799136023047831552