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

IF 4 3区医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY

Breast Cancer Pub 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":"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.","PeriodicalId":56083,"journal":{"name":"Breast Cancer","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","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":"","PubModel":"","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.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

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.