Wrapping up the evidence: bandaging in breast cancer-related lymphedema-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Breast Cancer Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-31 DOI:10.1007/s12282-025-01693-8
Celia García-Chico, Susana López-Ortiz, Carmen Lorenzo-Crespo, José Pinto-Fraga, Alejandro Santos-Lozano, Ana Domínguez-García
{"title":"Wrapping up the evidence: bandaging in breast cancer-related lymphedema-a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Celia García-Chico, Susana López-Ortiz, Carmen Lorenzo-Crespo, José Pinto-Fraga, Alejandro Santos-Lozano, Ana Domínguez-García","doi":"10.1007/s12282-025-01693-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The standard approach for breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) is Complex Decongestive Therapy. This therapy involves various components, including the use of compression bandages to reduce swelling. Among these, multilayer bandage is the most frequently applied bandage in these patients. Nevertheless, alternative bandaging methods may also be effective. The current systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to compare the effectiveness of different bandaging techniques in patients with BCRL.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify RCTs that analyzed different bandaging techniques in patients with BCRL. The methodological quality of the RCTs was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software, with standardized mean differences (SMDs) calculated by comparing change scores and standard deviations between intervention and control groups. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024597170).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 21 RCTs were included in the systematic review (n = 1122) and five could be meta-analyzed (n = 239). The meta-analysis did not reveal significant differences in the reduction of the affected arm volume among different bandaging techniques, including multilayer, kinesio-taping, cohesive, and alginate bandage [SMD = - 0.04, 95% confidence interval - 0.30 to 0.21; p = 0.750; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%].</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The current scientific evidence does not suggest a clear advantage of one bandaging technique over another, including kinesio-taping and multilayer bandages. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to better understand their potential benefits across the different stages and phases of BCRL management.</p>","PeriodicalId":56083,"journal":{"name":"Breast Cancer","volume":" ","pages":"654-675"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Breast Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-025-01693-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The standard approach for breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) is Complex Decongestive Therapy. This therapy involves various components, including the use of compression bandages to reduce swelling. Among these, multilayer bandage is the most frequently applied bandage in these patients. Nevertheless, alternative bandaging methods may also be effective. The current systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to compare the effectiveness of different bandaging techniques in patients with BCRL.

Methods: A search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify RCTs that analyzed different bandaging techniques in patients with BCRL. The methodological quality of the RCTs was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software, with standardized mean differences (SMDs) calculated by comparing change scores and standard deviations between intervention and control groups. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024597170).

Results: A total of 21 RCTs were included in the systematic review (n = 1122) and five could be meta-analyzed (n = 239). The meta-analysis did not reveal significant differences in the reduction of the affected arm volume among different bandaging techniques, including multilayer, kinesio-taping, cohesive, and alginate bandage [SMD = - 0.04, 95% confidence interval - 0.30 to 0.21; p = 0.750; I2 = 0%].

Conclusions: The current scientific evidence does not suggest a clear advantage of one bandaging technique over another, including kinesio-taping and multilayer bandages. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to better understand their potential benefits across the different stages and phases of BCRL management.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
总结证据:包扎治疗乳腺癌相关淋巴水肿——系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:乳腺癌相关淋巴水肿(BCRL)的标准治疗方法是综合减充血治疗。这种疗法包括多种成分,包括使用压缩绷带来减少肿胀。其中,多层绷带是这些患者最常用的绷带。然而,其他包扎方法也可能有效。当前对随机对照试验(rct)的系统评价和荟萃分析旨在比较不同包扎技术对BCRL患者的有效性。方法:检索PubMed、Web of Science和Scopus,找出分析BCRL患者不同包扎技术的随机对照试验。使用物理治疗证据数据库(PEDro)评估随机对照试验的方法学质量。meta分析采用RevMan 5.4软件进行,通过比较干预组和对照组的变化评分和标准差计算标准化平均差异(SMDs)。本研究已在PROSPERO注册(CRD42024597170)。结果:系统评价共纳入21项rct (n = 1122),其中5项可进行meta分析(n = 239)。meta分析未显示不同包扎技术(包括多层绷带、运动贴布、内聚绷带和海藻酸盐绷带)在减少患臂体积方面存在显著差异[SMD = - 0.04, 95%可信区间- 0.30至0.21;p = 0.750;i2 = 0%]。结论:目前的科学证据并没有表明一种包扎技术比另一种有明显的优势,包括运动肌贴和多层绷带。为了更好地了解它们在BCRL管理的不同阶段和阶段的潜在益处,有必要进行更大样本量的进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Breast Cancer
Breast Cancer ONCOLOGY-OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.50%
发文量
105
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Breast Cancer, the official journal of the Japanese Breast Cancer Society, publishes articles that contribute to progress in the field, in basic or translational research and also in clinical research, seeking to develop a new focus and new perspectives for all who are concerned with breast cancer. The journal welcomes all original articles describing clinical and epidemiological studies and laboratory investigations regarding breast cancer and related diseases. The journal will consider five types of articles: editorials, review articles, original articles, case reports, and rapid communications. Although editorials and review articles will principally be solicited by the editors, they can also be submitted for peer review, as in the case of original articles. The journal provides the best of up-to-date information on breast cancer, presenting readers with high-impact, original work focusing on pivotal issues.
期刊最新文献
Deep learning model with collage images for the segmentation of dedicated breast positron emission tomography images. Deep learning model to predict Ki-67 expression of breast cancer using digital breast tomosynthesis. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer diagnosis and treatment trends in Japan. A nomogram to predict the benefit of postmastectomy radiotherapy in breast cancer with nodal micrometastases. Alcohol consumption and breast lesions: targets for risk-based screening in high-risk Italian women.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1