S Tierney1, M Aslam, K Rennie, P Grace. 1. Department of Surgery, Royal Postgraduate Medical School, Hammersmith Hospital, London, U.K.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare a novel infrared optoelectronic system (Perometer) of limb volume measurement with water displacement and two indirect measurement techniques. DESIGN: A prospective experimental study. METHODS: In 10 healthy male volunteers (20 limbs) we compared limb volume measurements obtained by water displacement, infrared perometry, the disc model method and the frustrum method. In a further 17 patients with swollen limbs due to lymphatic (9 limbs) or venous (11 limbs) disease, perometry was compared to the disc model method and the frustrum method only. RESULTS: In normal limbs, mean +/- S.D. limb volume using water displacement was 1802 +/- 268 ml. Perometer values agreed almost exactly (1809 +/- 262 ml, r = 0.97, variation +/- 7% by limits of agreement) but both the disc (1923 +/- 306 ml, r = 0.90, variation +/- 14%) and frustrum (1905 +/- 372 ml, r = 0.72, variation +/- 28%) methods significantly overestimated limb volumes (p < 0.05 (ANOVA, Fisher's Least Significant Difference)). In diseased limbs perometer, disc method and frustrum method results were 2415 +/- 995 ml, 2494 +/- 969 ml, and 2413 +/- 870 ml representing variation of +/- 17% and +/- 23% for disc method and frustrum method respectively compared to perometry. CONCLUSIONS: Perometry is a novel, extremely accurate and easy method for assessing limb volume. It provides more accurate results than traditional indirect measurement of limb volume and potentially is a very useful clinical and research tool.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare a novel infrared optoelectronic system (Perometer) of limb volume measurement with water displacement and two indirect measurement techniques. DESIGN: A prospective experimental study. METHODS: In 10 healthy male volunteers (20 limbs) we compared limb volume measurements obtained by water displacement, infrared perometry, the disc model method and the frustrum method. In a further 17 patients with swollen limbs due to lymphatic (9 limbs) or venous (11 limbs) disease, perometry was compared to the disc model method and the frustrum method only. RESULTS: In normal limbs, mean +/- S.D. limb volume using water displacement was 1802 +/- 268 ml. Perometer values agreed almost exactly (1809 +/- 262 ml, r = 0.97, variation +/- 7% by limits of agreement) but both the disc (1923 +/- 306 ml, r = 0.90, variation +/- 14%) and frustrum (1905 +/- 372 ml, r = 0.72, variation +/- 28%) methods significantly overestimated limb volumes (p < 0.05 (ANOVA, Fisher's Least Significant Difference)). In diseased limbs perometer, disc method and frustrum method results were 2415 +/- 995 ml, 2494 +/- 969 ml, and 2413 +/- 870 ml representing variation of +/- 17% and +/- 23% for disc method and frustrum method respectively compared to perometry. CONCLUSIONS: Perometry is a novel, extremely accurate and easy method for assessing limb volume. It provides more accurate results than traditional indirect measurement of limb volume and potentially is a very useful clinical and research tool.
Authors: Renate M Winkels; Kathleen M Sturgeon; Michael J Kallan; Lorraine T Dean; Zi Zhang; Margaret Evangelisti; Justin C Brown; David B Sarwer; Andrea B Troxel; Crystal Denlinger; Monica Laudermilk; Anna Fornash; Angela DeMichele; Lewis A Chodosh; Kathryn H Schmitz Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-07-21 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Susan G R McDuff; Amir I Mina; Cheryl L Brunelle; Laura Salama; Laura E G Warren; Mohamed Abouegylah; Meyha Swaroop; Melissa N Skolny; Maria Asdourian; Tessa Gillespie; Kayla Daniell; Hoda E Sayegh; George E Naoum; Hui Zheng; Alphonse G Taghian Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-08-28 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jean O'Toole; Lauren S Jammallo; Cynthia L Miller; Melissa N Skolny; Michelle C Specht; Alphonse G Taghian Journal: Oncologist Date: 2013-04-10
Authors: Elana Katz; Nicole L Dugan; Joy C Cohn; Christina Chu; Rebecca G Smith; Kathryn H Schmitz Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Cynthia L Miller; Michelle C Specht; Melissa N Skolny; Nora Horick; Lauren S Jammallo; Jean O'Toole; Mina N Shenouda; Betro T Sadek; Barbara L Smith; Alphonse G Taghian Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-02-06 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Fangdi Sun; Alexander Hall; Megan P Tighe; Cheryl L Brunelle; Hoda E Sayegh; Tessa C Gillespie; Kayla M Daniell; Alphonse G Taghian Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-07-30 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Jason M Green; Sowjanya Paladugu; Xu Shuyu; Bob R Stewart; Chi-Ren Shyu; Jane M Armer Journal: Nurs Res Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.381