Physiotherapy after breast cancer surgery: results of a randomised controlled study to minimise lymphoedema

The development of secondary arm lymphoedema after the removal of axillary lymph nodes remains a potential problem for women with breast cancer. This study investigated the incidence of arm lymphoedema following axillary dissection to determine the effect of prospective monitoring and early physiotherapy intervention. Sixty-five women were randomly assigned to either the treatment (TG) or control group (CG) and assessments were made preoperatively, at day 5 and at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively. Three measurements were used for the detection of arm lymphoedema: arm circumferences (CIRC), arm volume (VOL) and multi-frequency bioimpedance (MFBIA). Clinically significant lymphoedema was confirmed by an increase of at least 200 ml from the preoperative difference between the two arms. Using this definition, the incidence of lymphoedema at 24 mo. was 21%, with a rate of 11% in the TG compared to 30% in the CG. The CIRC or MFBIA methods failed to detect lymphoedema in up to 50% of women who demonstrated an increase of at least 200 ml in the VOL of the operated arm compared to the unoperated arm. The physiotherapy intervention programme for the TG women included principles for lymphoedema risk minimisation and early management of this condition when it was identified. These strategies appear to reduce the development of secondary lymphoedema and alter its progression in comparison to the CG women. Monitoring of these women is continuing and will determine if these benefits are maintained over a longer period for women with early lymphoedema after breast cancer surgery.

Telemedicine for new neurological outpatients: putting a randomized controlled trial in the context of everyday practice

In a retrospective review, the telemedical management of 65 outpatients from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of telemedicine for non-urgent referrals to a consultant neurologist was compared with the management of 76 patients seen face to face in the same trial, with that of 150 outpatients seen in the neurology clinics of district general hospitals and with that of 102 neurological outpatients seen by general physicians. Outcome measures were the numbers of investigations and of patient reviews. The telemedicine group did not differ significantly from the 150 patients seen face to face by neurologists in hospital clinics in terms of either the number of investigations or the number of reviews they received. Patients from the RCT seen face to face had significantly fewer investigations but a similar number of reviews to the other 150 patients seen face to face by neurologists (the disparity in the number of investigations may explain the negative result for telemedicine in that RCT). Patients with neurological symptoms assessed by general physicians had significantly more investigations and were reviewed significantly more often than all the other groups. Patients from the RCT seen by telemedicine were not managed significantly differently from those seen face to face by neurologists in hospital clinics but had significantly fewer investigations and follow-ups than those patients managed by general physicians. The results suggest that management of new neurological outpatients by neurologists using telemedicine is similar to that by neurologists using a face-to-face consultation, and is more efficient than management by general physicians.