Helen E Eason, Sharon L Kilbreath, Nicola Fearn, Elizabeth S Dylke
{"title":"Assessment Tools to Quantify the Physical Aspects of Lipedema: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Helen E Eason, Sharon L Kilbreath, Nicola Fearn, Elizabeth S Dylke","doi":"10.1089/lrb.2024.0102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Lipedema diagnosis is heavily reliant on patient history. Various objective assessments have been suggested; however, a standardized measurement process is lacking. A systematic review was undertaken to identify which imaging and measurement tools are used in lipedema quantification and to review their protocols. Six databases were searched with two reviewers screening citations for inclusion. Full peer-reviewed publications that included defined lipedema diagnosis criteria, no male cases within comparative cohorts, and used an imaging or measurement tool to quantify lipedema were included. Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria using 13 different tools to quantify individual physical lipedema characteristics to either enable differential diagnosis, and/or quantify treatment effect: tape measure, perometry, durometry, tonometry, bioimpedance spectroscopy, tissue di-electric constant, ultrasound, Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), noncontrast MRI lymphangiography, Indocyanine green lymphography, lymphoscintigraphy, and dynamic lymphangiography. Eight imaging and five measurement tools assessed lymphatic transport disturbances (<i>n</i> = 8), limb size/volume (<i>n</i> = 4), adipose tissue thickness/mass/volume (<i>n</i> = 3), and tissue fluid presence (<i>n</i> = 2). Multiple tools were only used in studies completed in 2020 or later. A lack of consistency exists in tool protocols, measurement locations, and outcome analysis. Limited reporting of clinimetrics with data derived from small cohorts and heterogenous populations impacted the ability to recommend tools for clinical practice and research. Various tools were used for objective lipedema assessment; however, consistency in approach was lacking. Further investigations are required to establish the validity and reliability of measurement and imaging tools, protocols, measurement points, and outcome reporting/interpretation to quantify the physical attributes of lipedema.</p>","PeriodicalId":18168,"journal":{"name":"Lymphatic research and biology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lymphatic research and biology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/lrb.2024.0102","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Lipedema diagnosis is heavily reliant on patient history. Various objective assessments have been suggested; however, a standardized measurement process is lacking. A systematic review was undertaken to identify which imaging and measurement tools are used in lipedema quantification and to review their protocols. Six databases were searched with two reviewers screening citations for inclusion. Full peer-reviewed publications that included defined lipedema diagnosis criteria, no male cases within comparative cohorts, and used an imaging or measurement tool to quantify lipedema were included. Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria using 13 different tools to quantify individual physical lipedema characteristics to either enable differential diagnosis, and/or quantify treatment effect: tape measure, perometry, durometry, tonometry, bioimpedance spectroscopy, tissue di-electric constant, ultrasound, Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), noncontrast MRI lymphangiography, Indocyanine green lymphography, lymphoscintigraphy, and dynamic lymphangiography. Eight imaging and five measurement tools assessed lymphatic transport disturbances (n = 8), limb size/volume (n = 4), adipose tissue thickness/mass/volume (n = 3), and tissue fluid presence (n = 2). Multiple tools were only used in studies completed in 2020 or later. A lack of consistency exists in tool protocols, measurement locations, and outcome analysis. Limited reporting of clinimetrics with data derived from small cohorts and heterogenous populations impacted the ability to recommend tools for clinical practice and research. Various tools were used for objective lipedema assessment; however, consistency in approach was lacking. Further investigations are required to establish the validity and reliability of measurement and imaging tools, protocols, measurement points, and outcome reporting/interpretation to quantify the physical attributes of lipedema.
期刊介绍:
Lymphatic Research and Biology delivers the most current peer-reviewed advances and developments in lymphatic biology and pathology from the world’s leading biomedical investigators. The Journal provides original research from a broad range of investigative disciplines, including genetics, biochemistry and biophysics, cellular and molecular biology, physiology and pharmacology, anatomy, developmental biology, and pathology.
Lymphatic Research and Biology coverage includes:
-Vasculogenesis and angiogenesis
-Genetics of lymphatic disorders
-Human lymphatic disease, including lymphatic insufficiency and associated vascular anomalies
-Physiology of intestinal fluid and protein balance
-Immunosurveillance and immune cell trafficking
-Tumor biology and metastasis
-Pharmacology
-Lymphatic imaging
-Endothelial and smooth muscle cell biology
-Inflammation, infection, and autoimmune disease