Effectiveness of faradism under pressure versus complex decongestive therapy in subjects with peripheral oedema

Abstract

Background: Oedema is defined as excessive accumulation of free fluid in interstitial tissue spaces and serous cavities. The oedema may be of 2 main types: Localized when a particular organ or limb is involved e.g. lymphatic oedema, inflammatory oedema, allergic oedema and generalized when it is systemic in distribution, particularly seen in the subcutaneous tissues. The gold standard therapy for lymphedema is complex decongestive therapy (CDT). The first stage of CDT includes manual lymphatic drainage (MLD), compression therapy, exercise, and good skin care. The second phase, consisting of self-managing lymphatic massage, daily use of compression garments, and self-directed continuation of the exercises, should be implemented only after the completion of the first phase. Also, Faradism under pressure (FUP) is beneficial in oedematous conditions. In FUP, the pumping action of the alternate muscle contraction and relaxation, brings about increased venous and lymphatic return. The fluid is propelled towards the heart by an inward pressure on the tissue spaces and veins caused by the contraction of the muscle. Objectives: The objectives of the study were as follows: To determine effect of faradism under pressure in peripheral oedema. To determine effect of complex decongestive therapy. To compare the effect of faradism under pressure and complex decongestive therapy in peripheral oedematous conditions. Methods: Ethical clearance was obtained from the institutional ethical committee. A total of 20 subjects were assessed and all were included in the study based on inclusion criteria. Oedema was diagnosed using volumetric and girth assessment. Results: Intra-group statistical analysis of intervention group, pre-post volumetric measurement score was 33.6 ±9.192 and was found to be extremely significant and pre-post girth assessment score was 2.540 ± 0.9513 which was extremely significant. Conclusion: We found that both FUP and CDT were significantly effective in reducing peripheral oedema but CDT was more effective compared to FUP. This treatment was effective by reducing the volumetric and girth measurements which improved quality of life of patients.