4.4 Article

Physical activity for the affected limb and arm lymphedema after breast cancer surgery. A prospective, randomized controlled trial with two years follow-up

期刊

ACTA ONCOLOGICA
卷 48, 期 8, 页码 1102-1110

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AS
DOI: 10.3109/02841860903061683

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Health and Rehabilitation
  2. Norwegian Cancer Society
  3. Norwegian Women's Public Health Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The influence of physical activity on the development of arm lymphedema (ALE) after breast cancer surgery with axillary node dissection has been debated. We evaluated the development of ALE in two different rehabilitation programs: a no activity restrictions (NAR) in daily living combined with a moderate resistance exercise program and an activity restrictions (AR) program combined with a usual care program. The risk factors associated with the development of ALE 2 years after surgery were also evaluated. Material and methods. Women (n = 204) with a mean age of 55 +/- 10 years who had axillary node dissection were randomized into two different rehabilitation programs that lasted for 6 months: NAR (n = 104) or AR (n = 100). The primary outcomes were the difference in arm volume between the affected and control arms (Voldiff, in ml) and the development of ALE. Baseline (before surgery) and follow-up tests were performed 3 months, 6 months, and 2 years after surgery. Data were analyzed using ANCOVA and regression analysis. Results. Voldiff did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups. Arm volume increased significantly over time in both the affected and the control arms. The development of ALE from baseline to 2 years increased significantly in both groups (p < 0.001). The only risk factor for ALE was BMI > 25 kg/m(2). Conclusion. Patients that undergo breast cancer surgery with axillary lymph node dissection should be encouraged to maintain physical activity in their daily lives without restrictions and without fear of developing ALE.

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

4.4
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