Jornal Vascular Brasileiro
https://jvascbras.org/article/doi/10.1590/1677-5449.20140037
Jornal Vascular Brasileiro
Original Article

Evaluation of inter-rater reliability of subjective and objective criteria for diagnosis of lymphedema in upper and lower limbs

Avaliação da confiabilidade entre os critérios subjetivos e objetivos utilizados para o diagnóstico de linfedema nos membros superiores e inferiores

Larissa Louise Campanholi; João Pedreira Duprat Neto; José Humberto Tavares Guerreiro Fregnani

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1677-5449.20140037 J Vasc Bras, vol.14, n1, p.16-21, 2015
PDF
Downloads: 0
Views: 1219

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of lymphedema can be obtained objectively by measurement methods, and also by subjective methods, based on the patient's complaint. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate inter-rater reliability of objective and subjective criteria used for diagnosis of lymphedema and to propose a lymphedema cut-off for differences in volume between affected and control limbs. METHODS: We studied 84 patients who had undergone lymphadenectomy for treatment of cutaneous melanoma. Physical measures were obtained by manual perimetry (MP). The subjective criteria analyzed were clinical diagnosis of lymphedema in patients' medical records and self-report of feelings of heaviness and/or increase in volume in the affected limb. RESULTS: For upper limbs, the subjective criteria clinical observation (k 0.754, P<0.001) and heaviness and swelling (k 0.689, P<0.001) both exhibited strong agreement with MP results and there was moderate agreement between MP results and swelling (k 0.483 P<0.001), heaviness (k 0.576, P<0.001) and heaviness or swelling (k 0.412, P=0.001). For lower limbs there was moderate agreement between MP results and clinical observation (k 0.423, P=0.003) and regular agreement between MP and self-report of swelling (k 0.383, P=0.003). Cut-off values for diagnosing lymphedema were defined as a 9.7% difference between an affected upper limb and control upper limb and a 5.7% difference between lower limbs. CONCLUSION: Manual perimetry, medical criteria, and self-report of heaviness and/or swelling exhibited better agreement for upper limbs than for lower limbs for diagnosis of lymphedema.

Keywords

lymphedema, diagnosis, methods

Resumo

CONTEXTO: O diagnóstico de linfedema pode ser obtido tanto de forma objetiva, por métodos de mensuração, quanto por métodos subjetivos, através da queixa do paciente. OBJETIVO: Examinar a confiabilidade entre critérios objetivos e subjetivos utilizados para o diagnóstico de linfedema e propor um ponto de corte para linfedema de membros superiores e inferiores. MÉTODOS: Foram estudados 84 pacientes submetidos à linfonodectomias para o tratamento do melanoma cutâneo. As mensurações dos membros foram feitas utilizando a perimetria manual. Os critérios subjetivos foram obtidos através do diagnóstico de linfedema nos prontuários dos pacientes (observação clínica) e de auto-relato de sensação de peso e/ou aumento de volume no membro afetado. RESULTADOS: Nos membros superiores, houve uma forte correlação entre a perimetria manual e cada um dos critérios subjetivos: observação clínica (k 0,754, P<0,001) e sensação de peso eaumento de volume (k 0,689, P<0,001); concordância moderada no aumento de volume (k 0,483, P<0,001), peso (k 0,576, P<0,001) e sensação de peso ou aumento de volume (k 0,412, P=0,001). Nos membros inferiores, houve concordância moderada entre a perimetria e observação clínica (k 0,423, P=0,003) e regular no aumento de volume (k 0,383, P=0,003). O ponto de corte para definir linfedema foi uma diferença de 9,7% entre o membro afetado e o controle, e 5,7% de diferença para membros inferiores. CONCLUSÃO: Perimetria, observação clínica e auto-relato de sensação de peso e/ou aumento de volume, apresentaram melhor concordância para membros superiores que para inferiores no diagnóstico de linfedema.

Palavras-chave

linfedema, diagnóstico, métodos

References

Campanholi LL, Duprat JP, Fregnani JHTG. Mathematical model to predict risk for lymphoedema after treatment of cutaneous melanoma. Int J Surg. ;9(4):306-09.

Warren AG, Brorson H, Borud LJ, Slavin SA. Lymphedema: a comprehensive review. Ann Plast Surg. ;59(4):464-72.

Kretschmer L, Thoms KM, Peeters S, Haenssle H, Bertsch HP, Emmert S. Postoperative morbidity of lymph node excision for cutaneous melanoma-sentinel lymphonodectomy versus complete regional lymph node dissection. Melanoma Res. ;18(1):16-21.

Sabel MS, Griffith KA, Arora A. Inguinal node dissection for melanoma in the era of sentinel lymph node biopsy. Surgery. ;141(6):728-35.

van Akkooi AC, Bouwhuis MG, van Geel AN. Morbidity and prognosis after therapeutic lymph node dissections for malignant melanoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. ;33(1):102-08.

Lawton G, Rasque H, Ariyan S. Preservation of muscle fascia to decrease lymphedema after complete axillary and ilioinguinofemoral lymphadenectomy for melanoma. J Am Coll Surg. ;195(3):339-51.

Wrightson WR, Wong SL, Edwards MJ. Complications associated with sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol. ;10(6):676-80.

Spillane AJ, Saw RPM, Tucker M, Byth K, Thompson JF. Defining lower limb lymphedema after inguinal or ilio-inguinal dissection in patients with melanoma using classification and regression tree analysis. Ann Surg. ;248(2):286-93.

Allan CP, Hayes AJ, Thomas JM. Ilioinguinal lymph node dissection for palpable metastatic melanoma to the groin. ANZ J Surg. ;78(11):982-86.

Campanholi LL, Duprat JP, Fregnani JHTG. Incidence of LE due to treating cutaneous melanoma. J Lymphoedema. ;6(1):30-4.

Deltombe T, Jamart J, Recloux S. Reliability and limits of agreement of circumferential, water displacement, and optoelectronic volumetry in the measurement of upper limb lymphedema. Lymphology. ;40(1):26-34.

Kosir MA, Rymal C, Koppolu P. Surgical outcomes after breast cancer surgery: measuring acute lymphedema. J Surg Res. ;95(2):147-51.

Duff M, Hill AD, McGreal G, Walsh S, McDermott EW, O'Higgins NJ. Prospective evaluation of the morbidity of axillary clearance for breast cancer. Br J Surg. ;88(1):114-17.

Megens AM, Harris SR, Kim-Sing C, McKenzie DC. Measurement of upper extremity volume in women after axillary dissection for breast cancer. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. ;82(12):1639-644.

Karges JR, Mark BE, Stikeleather SJ, Worrell TW. Concurrent validity of upper-extremity volume estimates: comparison of calculated volume derived from girth measurements and water displacement volume. Phys Ther. ;83(2):134-45.

Mansel RE, Fallowfield L, Kissin M. Randomized multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy versus standard axillary treatment in operable breast cancer: the ALMANAC Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. ;98(9):599-609.

Chen YW, Tsai HJ, Hung HC, Tsauo JY. Reliability study of measurements for lymphedema in breast cancer patients. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. ;87(1):33-8.

Sander AP, Hajer NM, Hemenway K, Miller AC. Upper-extremity volume measurements in women with lymphedema: a comparison of measurements obtained via water displacement with geometrically determined volume. Phys Ther. ;82(12):1201-212.

de Vries M, Vonkeman WG, van Ginkel RJ, Hoekstra HJ. Morbidity after axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. ;31(7):778-83.

de Vries M, Vonkeman WG, van Ginkel RJ, Hoekstra HJ. Morbidity after inguinal sentinel lymph node biopsy and completion lymph node dissection in patients with cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. ;32(7):785-89.

Baas PC, Schraffordt Koops H, Hoekstra HJ, van Bruggen JJ, van der Weele LT, Oldhoff J. Groin dissection in the treatment of lower-extremity melanoma. Short-term and long-term morbidity. Arch Surg. ;127(3):281-86.

McLaughlin SA, Wright MJ, Morris KT. Prevalence of lymphedema in women with breast cancer 5 years after sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary dissection: objective measurements. J Clin Oncol. ;26(32):5213-219.

Hayes S, Cornish B, Newman B. Comparison of methods to diagnose lymphoedema among breast cancer survivors: 6-month follow-up. Breast Cancer Res Treat. ;89(3):221-26.

Armer JM, Stewart BR. A comparison of four diagnostic criteria for lymphedema in a post-breast cancer population. Lymphat Res Biol. ;3(4):208-17.

Hayes SC, Speck RM, Reimet E, Stark A, Schmitz KH. Does the effect of weight lifting on lymphedema following breast cancer differ by diagnostic method: results from a randomized controlled trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. ;130(1):227-34.

Smoot B, Wong J, Cooper B. Upper extremity impairments in women with or without lymphedema following breast cancer treatment. J Cancer Surviv. ;4(2):167-78.

Armer JM, Radina ME, Porock D, Culbertson SD. Predicting breast cancer-related lymphedema using self-reported symptoms. Nurs Res. ;52(6):370-79.

Tiwari A, Cheng KS, Button M, Myint F, Hamilton G. Differential diagnosis, investigation, and current treatment of lower limb lymphedema. Arch Surg. ;138(2):152-61.

Katz E, Dugan NL, Cohn JC, Chu C, Smith RG, Schmitz KH. Weight lifting in patients with lower-extremity lymphedema secondary to cancer: a pilot and feasibility study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. ;91(7):1070-076.

Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular (SBACV)"> Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular (SBACV)">
5de7fc450e88257935e31d41 jvb Articles
Links & Downloads
1677-7301 (Electronic)
J Vasc Bras ©2024 All rights reserved.

J Vasc Bras

Share this page
Page Sections