Skip to main content

Alternative Assessment and Measurement Tools

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Lymphedema
  • 2815 Accesses

Abstract

The stage and status of any lymphedematous limb (or other part of the body) and the impact of treatment on it can be measured objectively and accurately, yet, very few health professionals (and even fewer patients) ever make any attempt to undertake even the most basic measurements to obtain a complete assessment of the limb, few bother to compare the at-risk or affected limb with the contralateral one or consider the impact of limb dominance, and even fewer have the opportunity to determine risk and measure a high-risk limb prior to an intervention. The measurements need not always involve high-tech equipment; in fact many studies have shown low-tech information correlates well with our high-technology ones. What we need to do though is to undertake any assessment in an orderly and sequenced manner using a consistent technique ideally from presurgical intervention (or the first time a patient presents) through postsurgical recovery through their treatment and management programs.

Once we do this, we should be able to look forward not only to a greater awareness of the presenting condition but also the information will point to strategies for sequencing and targeting of the treatment/management program and will indicate the impact of our treatment interventions on the presenting condition. The result we hope will be a good outcome for those with or at risk of lymphedema.

Why do we have the above-described problem? Time is certainly an issue, but is not an excuse because a good understanding of the limb and its current presentation should help target and sequence treatment and thus gain a better outcome for the patient (and a better reputation for the treating clinician or therapist). The lack of enthusiasm for measuring is also another issue. This is often perceived as another chore, which can be bad news for the practitioner. Accurate information will certainly help the patient, but it can also help protect the practitioner should a legal claim be made against him or her.

I strongly believe that we must all make every attempt to detect lymphedema before it manifests clinically; this means easier treatment, a greater chance of patient involvement, compliance and adherence to management suggestions, better outcomes, and, from the perspective of the health-care system, a better cost-benefit analysis.

The alternative tools and techniques that are available to help us better understand and react to changes in limb structure (fibrotic tissue buildup) and function (shown as changes in levels of extracellular fluids) will be described.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Highlighted References

  1. Arinaga Y, Piller N, Sato F. How can we know the true magnitude of any breast cancer related lymphoedema if we do not know the true dominant arm? J Lymphoedema. 2016;11(1):2734.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Adriaenssens N, Buyl R, Lieverns P, Fontaine C, Lamote J. Comparative study between mobile infrared optoelectronic volumetry with a Perometer and two commonly used methods for the evaluation of arm volume in patients with breast cancer related Lymphoedema of the arm. Lymphology. 2013;46(3):132–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Choi Y-H, Seo K-S. Correlation among bioimpedance analysis, sonographic and circumferential measurement in assessment of breast cancer related arm lymphoedema. Lymphology. 2014;47(3):123–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Amer MA, Stewart R. A comparison of 4 diagnostic criteria for lymphoedema in a post breast cancer population. Lymphat Res Biol. 2005;3(4):208–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Keeley V, et al. A quality of life measure for limb lymphoedema (LYMQOL). J Lymphoedema. 2010;5:26–37.

    Google Scholar 

References

  1. Stanton A et al. Validation of an optoelectronic limb volumeter (perometer). Lymphology. 1997;30(s):77. PubMed.

  2. Meijer RS et al. Validity and intra/inter observer reliability of an indirect volume measurement in upper limb lymphoedema. Lymphology. 2004;37(3):127. PubMed.

  3. Cornish BH, Chapman M, Hirst C, et al. Early diagnosis of lymphedema using multifrequency bioimpedance. Lymphology. 2001;34(1):2–11. PubMed.

  4. Mayrovitz HN, Weingrad DN, Brlit F, Lopez LB, Desfor R. Tissue dielectric constant (TDC) as an index of localised arm skin water: differences between measuring probes and genders. Lymphology. 2015;48(1):15–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pannier F, Hoffmann B, Stang A, Jockel K-H, Rabe E. Prevalence of Stemmer’s sign in the general population. Phlebology. 2007;36:289–92.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bjork R. Positive stemmers sign yields a definitive lymphoedema diagnosis in 10 seconds or less. Wound Care Advisor. 2013;2(2):10–4.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bates D et al. Quantification of the rate and depth of pitting in human oedema using an electronic tonometer. Lymphology. 1994;27(4):159. PubMed.

  8. Vanderstelt S, Pallotta O, McEwenM, Ullah S, Burrow L, Piller N. Indurometer vs. Tonometer: Is the Indurometer Currently Able to Replace and Improve Upon the Tonometer? Lymphatic Research and Biology. 2015;13(2):131–36.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brautigam R et al. Analysis of lymphatic drainage in leg lymphoedema using two compartment lymphoscintigraphy. Lymphology. 1998;31(2):43. PubMed.

  10. Piller NB, Goodear M, Peter D. Lymphoscintigraphic evidence supports the evidence of axillo-inguinal anastomotic pathways in a patient with chronic secondary lymphoedema. Eur J Lymphol. 1998;6(24):97–100.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Baulieu F, Bourgeois P, et al. Contributions of SPECT/CT imaging to lymphoscintigraphic investigations of lower limb lymphoedema. Lymphology. 2013;46(3):106–19.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Suami H, Chang D, Skoracki R, Yamada K, Kimata Y. Using indocyanine green fluorescent lymphography to demonstrate lymphatic architecture. J Lymphoedema. 2012;7(2):25–9.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Suami H. Lymphosome concept: anatomical study of the lymphatic system. J Surg Oncol. 2016;61(1):1–5. doi:10.1002/jso.24332.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dennis R. Haemodynamics of lymphoedema. J Lymphoedema. 2008;3(2):45–9.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Modi S, Stanton AWB, Svensson W, Peters A, Mortimer P, Levick J. Human lymphatic pumping measured in healthy and lymphoedematous arms by lymphatic congestion lymphoscintigraphy. J Physiol. 2007;583:271–85. PubMed CrossRef.

  16. Amer M, Ramati A. Post traumatic symptoms, emotional distress and quality of life in long term survivors of breast cancer. J Anxiety Disord. 2002;16:195–206.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Van de Pas CB, Biemans AA, Boonen RS, Viehoff P. Validation of the lymphoedema quality of life questionnaire (LYMQOL) in Dutch patients diagnosed with lymphoedema of the lower limbs. Phlebology. 2016;31(4):257–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Veihoff P, Heerkens YF, et al. Development of a consensus international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) core sets for lymphedema. Lymphology. 2015;48(1):38–50.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neil Piller .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Piller, N. (2018). Alternative Assessment and Measurement Tools. In: Lee, BB., Rockson, S., Bergan, J. (eds) Lymphedema. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52423-8_29

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52423-8_29

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52421-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52423-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics