| Literature DB >> 27533265 |
Nara Fernanda Braz da Silva Leal1, Harley Francisco de Oliveira2, Hélio Humberto Angotti Carrara2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the effect of physical therapy on the range of motion of the shoulders and perimetry of the upper limbs in women treated with radiotherapy for breast cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27533265 PMCID: PMC4996084 DOI: 10.1590/1518-8345.0702.2755
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Lat Am Enfermagem ISSN: 0104-1169
Figure 1CONSORT diagram: inclusion, allocation, monitoring, and analysis
The characteristics of the study participants. Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil, 2012.
| Characteristic | Control group (n = 18) | Study group (n = 17) | |
| Age (years)* |
| 55.2 ± 7.14 | |
| Body weight (kg)* | 70.75 ± 18.24 | 69.58 ± 8.44 | |
| Type of surgery† | |||
| Conservative | 13 | 13 | |
| Radical | 4 | 4 | |
| Axillary lymphadenectomy | 11 | 11 | |
| Sentinel lymph node biopsy |
| 4 | |
| Plastic surgery | 2 | - | |
| Duration of surgery (months)* | 5.81 | 4.52 | |
| Chemotherapy† | 15 | 12 | |
| Hormone therapy† | 13 | 11 | |
| Disease staging† | |||
| 0 | 1 | 3 | |
| I | 3 | 2 | |
| IIA | 4 | 6 | |
| IIB | 4 | 2 | |
| IIIA | 2 | 3 | |
| IIIB | 4 | 2 | |
| IIIC | - | - | |
| IV | - | - | |
*Mean and standard deviation (SD)
Number of participants
Goniometry of ipsilateral and contralateral limbs: evaluation 1 (T1), evaluation 2 (T2), and evaluation 3 (T3) (mean ± SD). Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil, 2012
| Study group (GE) | Control group (CG) | IL* SG vs. CG | |||||||
| IL* | CL† | p | IL* | CL† | p | P | |||
| Flex‡_T1‡‡ | 135.80° ± 17.48 | 147.40° ± 9.44 | <0.05 | 134.0 ± 26.2 | 148.3 ± 14.6 | <0.05 | 0.82 | ||
| Flex‡_T2§§ | 140.40° ± 10.41 | 148.60° ± 7.41 | <0.05 | 139.1 ± 18.1 | 150.8 ± 14.1 | <0.01 | 0.82 | ||
| Flex‡_T3|| | 143.40° ± 9.76 | 148.00° ± 5.38 | 0.22 | 139.4 ± 15.6 | 149.2 ± 13.3 | <0.05 | 0.46 | ||
| Ext§_T1‡‡ | 39.53° ± 7.18 | 44.41° ± 8.02 | 0.07 | 41.78 ± 9.1 | 43.3 ± 9.0 | 0.302 | 0.42 | ||
| Ext§_T2§§ | 41.46° ± 5.92 | 43.88° ± 5.52 | 0.40 | 37.9 ± 41.8 | 41.8 ± 8.0 | <0.01 | 0.22 | ||
| Ext§_T3|| | 40.25° ± 5.89 | 43.17° ± 4.32 | 0.18 | 39.3 ± 8.1 | 40.3 ± 7.0 | 0.524 | 0.73 | ||
| Abd|_T1‡‡ | 133.20° ± 22.70 | 147.20° ± 14.08 | <0.05 | 127.9 ± 31.0 | 146.1 ± 22.8 | <0.01 | 0.57 | ||
| Abd|_T2§§ | 140.80° ± 16.61 | 149.10° ± 3.13 | 0.17 | 132.9 ± 21.8 | 146.6 ± 20.3 | <0.05 | 0.29 | ||
| Abd|_T3|| | 139.70° ± 14:53 | 147.30° ± 14.75 | 0.22 | 133.0 ± 20.5 | 149.1 ± 17.9 | <0.05 | 0.37 | ||
| Ad¶_T1‡‡ | 28.71° ± 7.88 | 31.53° ± 8.25 | 0.32 | 29.4 ± 13.9 | 32.8 ± 7.6 | 0.291 | 0.85 | ||
| Ad¶_T2§§ | 29.38° ± 7:34 | 30.31° ± 30.06 | 0.74 | 25.81 ± 9.4 | 31.3 ± 8.6 | 0.062 | 0.27 | ||
| Ad¶_T3|| | 28.42° ± 7:33 | 31.25° ± 9:58 | 0.42 | 28.8 ± 8.5 | 33.3 ± 10.0 | 0.070 | 0.92 | ||
| ER**_T1‡‡ | 74.88° ± 15.10 | 83.76° ± 4.70 | <0.01 | 73.0 ± 14.4 | 81.1 ± 7.4 | <0.05 | 0.66 | ||
| ER**_T2§§ | 75.46° ± 10:45 | 83.15° ± 6.18 | <0.05 | 72.9 ± 13.0 | 82.1 ± 9.3 | <0.05 | 0.57 | ||
| ER**_T3|| | 78.33° ± 9.76 | 82.50° ± 5:38 | 0.21 | 70.8 ± 15.4 | 83.4 ± 9.2 | <0.05 | 0.17 | ||
| IR††_T1‡‡ | 74.18° ± 14:33 | 77.94° ± 09.05 | 0.37 | 74.3 ± 12.1 | 72.9 ± 12.2 | 0.510 | 0.97 | ||
| IR††_T2§§ | 73.62° ± 12.02 | 76.23° ± 7:53 | 0.51 | 77.1 ± 9.1 | 75.1 ± 9.4 | 0.382 | 0.39 | ||
| IR††_ T3|| | 76.08° ± 9:46 | 76.92° ± 7.66 | 0.81 | 75.9 ± 7.4 | 76.3 ± 8.4 | 0.827 | 0.96 | ||
* IL: ipsilateral limb; † CL: contralateral limb; ‡ Flex: flexion; §Ext: extension; |Abd: abduction; ¶Ad adduction; **ER: external rotation; †† IR: internal rotation; ‡‡ T1: evaluation 1; §§T2: evaluation 2; ||T3: evaluation 3.
Difference in perimetry between ipsilateral and contralateral limbs in evaluation 1 (T1), evaluation 2 (T2), and evaluation 3 (T3) (mean ± SD). Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil, 2012
| T1 | T2 | T3 | P-value* | |||
| Point A | Study group | 0.04 ± 0.46 | 12.12 ± 0.87 | 12.17 ± 0.81 | 0.90 | |
| Control group | 0.03 ± 0.65 | 0.20 ± 0.75 | 0.29 ± 0.62 | 0.67 | ||
| p-value† | 0.89 | 0.78 | 0.67 | |||
| Point B | Study group | 0.14 ± 0.63 | 0.15 ± 0.85 | 0.67 ± 1.15 | 0.26 | |
| Control group | -0.19 ± 0.84 | 0.10 ± 0.63 | 0.29 ± 0.75 | 0.38 | ||
| p-value† | 0.32 | 0.85 | 0.36 | |||
| Point C | Study group | 0.25 ± 0.98 | 0.38 ± 1.21 | 0.75 ± 1.05 | 0.50 | |
| Control group | -0.17 ± 0.94 | -0.03 ± 1.38 | 0.25 ± 1.27 | 0.50 | ||
| p-value† | 0.25 | 0.40 | 0.30 | |||
| Point D | Study group | 0.29 ± 0.95 | 0.42 ± 1.37 | 0.50 ± 1.22 | 0.87 | |
| Control group | -0.03 ± 0.88 | -0.03 ± 1.04 | 0.17 ± 1.09 | 0.89 | ||
| p-value† | 0.47 | 0.33 | 0.47 | |||
| Point E | Study group | 0.43 ± 1.31 | 0.46 ± 1.68 | 0.96 ± 1.42 | 0.61 | |
| Control group | 0.36 ± 1.03 | 0.13 ± 1.23 | 0.08 ± 1.29 | 0.98 | ||
| p-value† | 0.89 | 0.56 | 0.13 | |||
| Point F | Study group | 0.32 ± 1.28 | 0.54 ± 1.64 | 0.87 ± 0.98 | 0.58 | |
| Control group | 0.17 ± 1.40 | 0.20 ± 1.31 | -0.21 ± 1.17 | 0.64 | ||
| p-value† | 0.88 | 0.55 | <0.05 | |||
*Intragroup comparison
†Intergroup comparison