Türkan Turgay1, Tuba Denkçeken2, Göktürk Maralcan3. 1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Sanko University Faculty of Medicine, Gaziantep, Turkey. 2. Department of Biophysics, Sanko University Faculty of Medicine, Gaziantep, Turkey. 3. Department of General Surgery, Sanko University Faculty of Medicine, Gaziantep, Turkey.
Abstract
Objectives: The correlation between lymphedema severity and stages determined by standard diagnostic methods and Bioimpedance Spectroscopy (BIS) technique was examined in breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) patients. Material and Methods: The bioimpedance analyzer device was connected to the 1.0 cm disc electrodes which were connected to the affected and unaffected (healthy) arm of the patients. We evaluated the performance of the impedance (Z) at multiple frequencies (5-50-100-200 kHz) and phase angle (PA), resistance (R), and reactance (XC) at 50 kHz on the lymphedema severity and stages. Bioimpedance measurements were applied to all volunteers in cooperation with the Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Department. In this study, the correlation between BCRL severity and stages and bioimpedance values was examined. Results: A total of 31 female patients were recruited to compare the BIS technique with standard diagnostic techniques. The severity of lymphedema was found among the patients as follows; mild 14 (45.2%), moderate 10 (32.3%), and severe 7 (22.6%). The stage distribution of volunteers was; 15 (48.4%) patients in Stage 0, 10 (32.3%) patients in Stage 1, 5 (16.1%) patients in Stage 2, and 1 (3.2%) patient in Stage 3. The ratio of affected and unaffected arm bioimpedance mean values were calculated. Although, this ratio at 50-100-200 kHz Z and 50kHz R were significantly correlated with the lymphedema stages (p <0.05), there was no correlation and significant difference between the ratio of the bioimpedance values and lymphedema severity (p> 0.05). Conclusion: The BIS technique is timesaving and can determine lymphedema stages. We found a significant correlation between BCRL stages and BIS, and it appears that BIS is an appropriate, inexpensive, simple, and noninvasive technique for detecting the stages of BCRL.
Objectives: The correlation between lymphedema severity and stages determined by standard diagnostic methods and Bioimpedance Spectroscopy (BIS) technique was examined in breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) patients. Material and Methods: The bioimpedance analyzer device was connected to the 1.0 cm disc electrodes which were connected to the affected and unaffected (healthy) arm of the patients. We evaluated the performance of the impedance (Z) at multiple frequencies (5-50-100-200 kHz) and phase angle (PA), resistance (R), and reactance (XC) at 50 kHz on the lymphedema severity and stages. Bioimpedance measurements were applied to all volunteers in cooperation with the Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Department. In this study, the correlation between BCRL severity and stages and bioimpedance values was examined. Results: A total of 31 female patients were recruited to compare the BIS technique with standard diagnostic techniques. The severity of lymphedema was found among the patients as follows; mild 14 (45.2%), moderate 10 (32.3%), and severe 7 (22.6%). The stage distribution of volunteers was; 15 (48.4%) patients in Stage 0, 10 (32.3%) patients in Stage 1, 5 (16.1%) patients in Stage 2, and 1 (3.2%) patient in Stage 3. The ratio of affected and unaffected arm bioimpedance mean values were calculated. Although, this ratio at 50-100-200 kHz Z and 50kHz R were significantly correlated with the lymphedema stages (p <0.05), there was no correlation and significant difference between the ratio of the bioimpedance values and lymphedema severity (p> 0.05). Conclusion: The BIS technique is timesaving and can determine lymphedema stages. We found a significant correlation between BCRL stages and BIS, and it appears that BIS is an appropriate, inexpensive, simple, and noninvasive technique for detecting the stages of BCRL.
Authors: Li Zou; Feng-Hua Liu; Pei-Pei Shen; Yan Hu; Xiao-Qian Liu; Ying-Ying Xu; Qi-Liang Pen; Bei Wang; Ya-Qun Zhu; Ye Tian Journal: Breast Cancer Date: 2018-02-03 Impact factor: 4.239
Authors: Atilla Soran; Tolga Ozmen; Kandace P McGuire; Emilia J Diego; Priscilla F McAuliffe; Marguerite Bonaventura; Gretchen M Ahrendt; Lori DeGore; Ronald Johnson Journal: Lymphat Res Biol Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 2.589
Authors: Maria S Asdourian; Meyha N Swaroop; Hoda E Sayegh; Cheryl L Brunelle; Amir I Mina; Hui Zheng; Melissa N Skolny; Alphonse G Taghian Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-10-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Toan T Nguyen; Tanya L Hoskin; Elizabeth B Habermann; Andrea L Cheville; Judy C Boughey Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Digant Gupta; Carolyn A Lammersfeld; Pankaj G Vashi; Jessica King; Sadie L Dahlk; James F Grutsch; Christopher G Lis Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2008-08-27 Impact factor: 4.430