4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

The role of occupational upper extremity use in breast cancer related upper extremity lymphedema

Journal

JOURNAL OF CANCER SURVIVORSHIP
Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 15-19

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11764-009-0103-4

Keywords

Breast cancer; Lymphedema; Stage; Occupation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Upper extremity (UE) use has been related to breast cancer-related lymph edema (BCRL). Our aim was to evaluate severity of BCRL in different occupation groups, according to upper extremity use. Methods Fifty-five women with BCRL were recruited. Group-1 (n=21), with a mean age of 59, included patients who worked continuously < 30 min at a time and <= 8 h per day. Group-2 (n=15), with a mean age of 54, were patients who worked continuously between 30 to 60 min at a time, and <= 8 h per day. Group-3 (n=19), who had a mean age of 51, included patients who were working continuously for > 1 h and > 8 h per day. Results The age, operation type, infection occurrence, radiotherapy status, and the operation on the side of the dominant hand were not statistically different between the groups. The stage and grade of the BCRL in group-3 were higher than the other groups (both p < 0.001). The restriction of shoulder movements on the operation side (p=0.04) and shoulder physiotherapy need (p < 0.001) were the highest in group-3. Arm pain (p=0.004) and pain medicine needs (p=0.028) in group-1 were lower than the other groups. Conclusion Group-3 had the worst BCRL clinical stage and grade status and other breast cancer treatment related morbities. Occupations that require greater use of the upper extremities. At present there is a need for closer monitoring of patients with more severe BCRL. Potential exacerbating and maintaining factors of functional limitations and pain need to considered so that clinical management addresses these in relation to daily use of the affected UE.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available