4.6 Article

Effectiveness of myofascial release after breast cancer surgery in women undergoing conservative surgery and radiotherapy: a randomized controlled trial

期刊

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
卷 27, 期 7, 页码 2633-2641

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-018-4544-z

关键词

Breast cancer; Myofascial release; Range of motion; Quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeThe scars derived from the treatment of breast cancer lead to adverse effects such as fibrosis or retractions of the connective tissue. Myofascial release (MR) seeks to reduce restrictions of the fascial system. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze the clinical impact of MR treatment on women survivors of breast cancer.MethodsWe enrolled 24 women with breast cancer, 13 received myofascial release treatment (MR) and 11, a placebo manual lymphatic drainage treatment (PMLD). Both interventions were administered over a period of 4weeks. The outcomes studied were pain, shoulder range of motion (ROM), functionality, quality of life (QoL), and depression, immediately after treatment and 1month later.ResultsAfter 4weeks of treatment, only the participants who received MR experienced a significant decrease in pain intensity in the short and midterm (p<0.05). This therapy also achieved a general improvement in ROM (p<0.05), except for internal rotation, that persisted 1month after treatment. Regarding functionality, both therapies achieved the level of significance (p<0.05), but only MRG sustained the improvement in the midterm. General QoL, assessed with FACT-B, and its physical well-being dimension were significantly improved after MR implementation (p<0.05), while the emotional dimension and the breast cancer subscale improved only with PMLD (p<0.05).ConclusionsIn conclusion, an MR-based treatment shows physical benefits (i.e., overall shoulder movement, functionality, and perceived pain) in women after breast cancer surgery.Trial registrationThis study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03182881.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据