The objective of this trial was to investigate the effectiveness of fluoroscopy-guided manual lymph drainage (MLD), as part of decongestive lymphatic therapy (DLT), on the superficial lymphatic architecture in patients with chronic mild to moderate breast cancer-related lymphoedema (BCRL). This trial was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial involving 194 participants with BCRL. Participants were randomised into (1) DLT with fluoroscopy-guided MLD (intervention group), (2) DLT with traditional MLD (control group), or (3) DLT with placebo MLD (placebo group). Superficial lymphatic architecture was evaluated as a secondary outcome, visualised by ICG lymphofluoroscopy at the baseline (B0), post-intensive (P), and post-maintenance phases (P6). Variables were (1) number of efferent superficial lymphatic vessels leaving the dermal backflow region, (2) total dermal backflow score, and (3) number of superficial lymph nodes. The traditional MLD group showed a significant decrease in the number of efferent superficial lymphatic vessels at P (p = 0.026), and of the total dermal backflow score at P6 (p = 0.042). The fluoroscopy-guided MLD and placebo group showed significant decreases in the total dermal backflow score at P (p < 0.001 and p = 0.044, respectively) and at P6 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.007, respectively); the placebo MLD group showed a significant decrease in the total number of lymph nodes at P (p = 0.008). However, there were no significant between-group differences for the changes in these variables. In conclusion, based on lymphatic architecture outcomes, the added value of MLD, in addition to the other parts of DLT, could not be demonstrated in patients with chronic mild to moderate BCRL.

To investigate reliability, concurrent validity, and clinical feasibility of measurements assessing volume in patients with lower limb lymphedema (LLL) and healthy controls. To investigate intra- and interrater reliability, 47 patients with LLL and 30 healthy controls were assessed three times by two assessors. To investigate between session reliability, 50 participants were reassessed two weeks later. Each assessment included measurements of the midline region (hip circumference; suprapubic volume), leg volume (perimeter every 4 cm; Perometer^®), and foot volume (water displacement; figure-of-eight method). Concurrent validity was assessed with correlation coefficients. Measurements were timed and practical limitations were reviewed. Clinical trial registration number: NCT: 05269264. Measurements of the total volume of different regions showed weak to very high intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) (0.131-998). Absolute and relative volume differences had lower ICC values (0.360-0.976). A strong correlation was found between the total volumes of the same region. The Perometer^® and figure-of-eight method were the fastest method for leg and foot volume, respectively. The assessed total volumes might be more valuable in assessing the evolution of volume in bilateral LLL than the calculated absolute and relative differences between both limbs. The Perometer^® and figure-of-eight method were the most time efficient for leg and foot volume, respectively.Implications for rehabilitationLymphedema is a chronic condition for which a reliable and clinically feasible assessment of volume is essential for the diagnosis, treatment decisions, and the evaluation of the treatment.This study shows that the total leg/foot volumes were more reliable than the calculated absolute and relative differences between both limbs and could therefore more valuable to evaluate bilateral lower limb lymphedema.For the assessment of leg volume, the Perometer^® was the most reliable and fastest method.For the evaluation of the foot volume, the figure-of-eight method was overall the best method.

To offer a summary of the clinimetrics of measurement methods used for screening, diagnosis, and evaluation of lower limb lymphoedema (LLL). Data sources: According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline, a systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE. Searches were performed on 1 December 2022 and reconducted on 18 July 2024. Study selection: Studies in patients with (or at risk for) LLL, whether or not compared to healthy controls. Data extraction: Quantitative data on clinimetric properties. Twenty-three papers were included and divided in papers reporting on clinimetrics of methods assessing swelling, skin properties, local tissue water, and intra- and extracellular fluid. Water displacement, opto-electronic volumetry, and circumference measures seem to be reliable measurement methods to be applied in clinical practice. Circumference measures (with 8 cm interval) is a time-efficient method with few practical limitations. Based on the little literature available in patients with LLL, we recommend to select different methods assessing more than one lymphedoema characteristic to get a clear overview on the patient's lymphoedema status. At this moment, literature is still unclear on the use of specific measurement methods in LLL. More research regarding validity, responsiveness, and feasibility is needed.

To investigate reliability, concurrent validity and clinical feasibility of local tissue water measurements in patients with lower limb lymphedema and healthy controls. In this cross-sectional study the Moisture Meter D Compact device^® (MMDC) measurement and "pitting test" were performed three times by two assessors to test intra- and inter-rater reliability in 47 patients and 30 healthy controls. To investigate the between-session reliability, 29 patients and 21 healthy controls were reassessed two weeks later. Time efficiency and practical limitations were evaluated. The concurrent validity was investigated between the two tests. Clinical trial registration number: NCT:05269264. Of the MMDC values, 58% showed strong to very strong intra-rater reliability, 32% showed strong to very strong inter-rater reliability and 36% had strong to very strong between-session reliability. Absolute values had generally a higher reliability than inter-limb or leg-to-arm ratio values. The pitting test had nil to perfect agreement between assessments (Cohen's kappa = -0.03-1.00) with fewer practical limitations and shorter performance time than the MMDC. Between both tests nil to a moderate relationship was found (Kendall's tau c = 0.00-0.60). The MMDC and pitting test are reliable and feasible measurements to assess local tissue water depending on the location, but should not be used interchangeably.

Background: Patients undergoing treatment for prostate cancer may develop lymphoedema of the midline region. This has a substantial impact on a patient’s quality of life and its diagnosis is often delayed or missed. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the characteristics of patients with leg and midline lymphoedema to patients with only leg lymphoedema. Methods: We retrospectively collected patient-, cancer-, lymphoedema- and lymphoedema treatment-related data of 109 men with lymphoedema after treatment for prostate cancer. First, 42 characteristics were compared between both groups. Second, factors predicting presence of midline lymphoedema were explored by multivariable analyses. Results: The mean age of the patients with lymphoedema was 68 ( ±7) years and mean BMI is 28 (±4) kg/m². Median duration of lymphoedema before the first consultation was 27 (9;55) months. Based on univariable analyses, patients with leg and midline lymphoedema had more frequently upper leg lymphoedema (89% (31/35) vs. 69% (51/74), p = 0.026), skin fibrosis (34% (12/35) vs. 16% (12/74), p = 0.034) and lymphatic reconstructive surgery (9% (3/35) vs. 0% (0/71), p = 0.020) than patients with only leg lymphoedema. Additionally, patients with leg and midline lymphoedema reported less frequently lower leg lymphoedema (77% (27/35) vs. 95% (70/74), p = 0.007). Based on the multivariable analysis, not having lower leg lymphoedema, skin fibrosis, performing self-bandaging and self-manual lymphatic drainage appear to be predictors for having midline lymphoedema. Conclusions: If patients with lymphoedema after prostate cancer do not have lower leg lymphoedema, have skin fibrosis, perform self-bandaging or self-manual lymphatic drainage, they possibly have midline lymphoedema.

Patients with lymphedema experience impairments in body structure and function, activity limitations and participation restrictions [1,2]. An impairment in body structure that is especially reporte...