BACKGROUND: The aim was to assess the agreement between bioimpedance indices and inter-limb volume differences, as assessed by perometry, for assessment of unilateral arm lymphedema. METHODS: Impedance was measured in the arms of 45 women with lymphedema and a separate control group without lymphedema (n = 21). Arm volume was measured at the same time by perometry. The impedance indices, (ratio of impedances between limbs and the L-dex scores) were compared to the inter-limb volume differences using concordance correlation analysis. RESULTS: Impedance indices were highly correlated (r = 0.926) with the difference in arm volume measured by perometry. CONCLUSIONS: Bioelectrical impedance analysis, although not providing a quantitative volume measurement of lymphedema, provides a measurement index that is highly correlated with quantitative measurements of the volume increase in limb size seen in lymphedema. The speed and ease of the impedance technique renders it a suitable alternative to perometry for the assessment of lymphedema.
BACKGROUND: The aim was to assess the agreement between bioimpedance indices and inter-limb volume differences, as assessed by perometry, for assessment of unilateral arm lymphedema. METHODS: Impedance was measured in the arms of 45 women with lymphedema and a separate control group without lymphedema (n = 21). Arm volume was measured at the same time by perometry. The impedance indices, (ratio of impedances between limbs and the L-dex scores) were compared to the inter-limb volume differences using concordance correlation analysis. RESULTS: Impedance indices were highly correlated (r = 0.926) with the difference in arm volume measured by perometry. CONCLUSIONS: Bioelectrical impedance analysis, although not providing a quantitative volume measurement of lymphedema, provides a measurement index that is highly correlated with quantitative measurements of the volume increase in limb size seen in lymphedema. The speed and ease of the impedance technique renders it a suitable alternative to perometry for the assessment of lymphedema.
Authors: M R Fu; C M Cleland; A A Guth; M Kayal; J Haber; F Cartwright; R Kleinman; Y Kang; J Scagliola; D Axelrod Journal: Lymphology Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 1.286
Authors: Marek Ancukiewicz; Cynthia L Miller; Melissa N Skolny; Jean O'Toole; Laura E Warren; Lauren S Jammallo; Michelle C Specht; Alphonse G Taghian Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2012-06-19 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Sharon A Czerniec; Leigh C Ward; Mi-Joung Lee; Kathryn M Refshauge; Jane Beith; Sharon L Kilbreath Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-05-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Stanley G Rockson; John P Cooke; Ngan F Huang; Catarina Hadamitzky; Tatiana S Zaitseva; Magdalena Bazalova-Carter; Michael V Paukshto; Luqia Hou; Zachary Strassberg; James Ferguson; Yuka Matsuura; Rajesh Dash; Phillip C Yang; Shura Kretchetov; Peter M Vogt Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2016-06-07 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Maria Laura Avila; Leigh C Ward; Brian M Feldman; Madeline I Montoya; Jennifer Stinson; Alex Kiss; Leonardo R Brandão Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-04-13 Impact factor: 3.240