Compression Pressure Variability in Upper Limb Multilayer Bandaging Applied by Lymphedema Therapists

7Citations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: Multilayer bandaging (MLB) is often used for lymphedema treatment. Even experienced lymphedema therapists have difficulty applying bandages correctly. The aim of this study was to demonstrate upper limb MLB pressure variability applied by lymphedema therapists. Methods and Results: Twenty-four lymphedema therapists were asked to apply MLB to the healthy volunteer's upper limb. The participants consisted of 20 females and 4 males with a mean age of 43.4 (range: 24-62) years. They included licensed massage therapists, nurses, a judo therapist, an occupational therapist, and a medical doctor. Twenty therapists (83.3%) had clinical experience applying MLB. Compression pressure was measured with PicoPress at 5 cm proximal to the wrist, immediately after the application (phase 1) and after exercise (phase 2). The mean MLB pressure was 67.7 ± 5.0 mmHg in phase 1 and 55.3 ± 4.1 mmHg in phase 2, which were significantly different (p = 1.2 × 10-10). There was a weak negative correlation between how long the therapist had been practicing MLB and MLB pressure (R = 0.29). Seventeen participants (70.8%) expressed that they had a target pressure in mind when performing MLB. Among the 17 participants, there was no correlation between the target and actual pressures (R =-0.055). Only three participants (17.6%) had an actual MLB pressure within 5 mmHg of their target. Conclusions: The mean MLB pressure was 55.3 ± 4.1 mmHg, which was thought to be too high for the upper limb. Education about applying appropriate MLB pressures to the limbs is necessary.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hara, H., Yoshida, M., Ikehata, N., Tachibana, S., Hamanaka, N., Nakakawaji, K., & Mihara, M. (2021). Compression Pressure Variability in Upper Limb Multilayer Bandaging Applied by Lymphedema Therapists. Lymphatic Research and Biology, 19(4), 378–382. https://doi.org/10.1089/lrb.2020.0083

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free