Prevalence and incidence of cancer related lymphedema in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND:Little is known about the prevalence and incidence in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) of secondary lymphedema due to cancer. The purpose of the study is to estimate the prevalence and incidence in LMICs of secondary lymphedema related to cancer and/or its treatment(s) and identify risk factors. METHOD:A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched in June 2019 for peer-reviewed articles that assessed prevalence and/or incidence of cancer-related lymphedema in LMICs. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Prevalence Studies. Estimates of pooled prevalence and incidence estimates were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI), with sub-group analyses grouping studies according to: country of origin, study design, risk of bias, setting, treatment, and lymphedema site and measurement. Heterogeneity was measured using X2 and I2, with interpretation guided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. RESULTS:Of 8766 articles, 36 were included. Most reported on arm lymphedema secondary to breast cancer treatment (n = 31), with the remainder reporting on leg lymphedema following gynecological cancer treatment (n = 5). Arm lymphedema was mostly measured by arm circumference (n = 16/31 studies), and leg lymphedema through self-report (n = 3/5 studies). Eight studies used more than one lymphedema measurement. Only two studies that measured prevalence of leg lymphedema could be included in a meta-analysis (pooled prevalence =10.0, 95% CI 7.0-13.0, I2 = 0%). The pooled prevalence of arm lymphedema was 27%, with considerable heterogeneity (95% CI 20.0-34.0, I2 = 94.69%, n = 13 studies). The pooled incidence for arm lymphedema was 21%, also with considerable heterogeneity (95% CI 15.0-26.0, I2 = 95.29%, n = 11 studies). There was evidence that higher body mass index (> 25) was associated with increased risk of arm lymphedema (OR: 1.98, 95% CI 1.45-2.70, I2 = 84.0%, P < 0.0001, n = 4 studies). CONCLUSION:Better understanding the factors that contribute to variability in cancer-related arm lymphedema in LMICs is an important first step to developing targeted interventions to improve quality of life. Standardising measurement of lymphedema globally and better reporting would enable comparison within the context of information about cancer treatments and lymphedema care

Understanding consumer and clinician preferences and decision making for rehabilitation following arthroplasty in the private sector.

BACKGROUND: To understand private consumer and clinician preferences towards different rehabilitation modes following knee or hip arthroplasty, and identify factors which influence the chosen rehabilitation pathway. METHODS: Mixed methods cross-sectional study involving 95 semi-structured interviews of consumers (patients and carers) and clinicians (arthroplasty surgeons, physiotherapists and rehabilitation physicians) in Sydney, Australia, during 2014-2015. Participants were asked about the acceptability of different modes of rehabilitation provision, and factors influencing their chosen rehabilitation pathway. Interviews were in person or via the telephone. Qualitative analysis software was used to electronically manage qualitative data. An analytical approach guided data analysis. RESULTS: Pre-operative preferences strongly influenced the type of rehabilitation chosen by consumers. Key factors that influenced this were both intrinsic and extrinsic, including; the previous experience of self or known others, the perceived benefits of the chosen mode, a sense of entitlement, the role of orthopaedic surgeons and influence of patient preference, a patient's clinical status post-surgery, the private hospital business model and insurance provider involvement. The acceptability of rehabilitation modes varied between clinician groups. CONCLUSIONS: No one rehabilitation mode provided following arthroplasty is singularly preferred by stakeholders. Factors other than the belief that a particular mode was more effective than another appear to dominate the pathway followed by private arthroplasty consumers, indicating evidence-based policies around rehabilitation provision may have limited appeal in the private sector

Assessment of Outcomes of Inpatient or Clinic-Based vs Home-Based Rehabilitation After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Recent publication of the largest trials to date investigating rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) necessitate an updated evidence review. Objective: To determine whether inpatient or clinic-based rehabilitation is associated with superior function and pain outcomes after TKA compared with any home-based program. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PubMed were searched from inception to November 5, 2018. Search terms included knee arthroplasty, randomized controlled trial, physiotherapy, and rehabilitation. Study Selection: Published randomized clinical trials of adults who underwent primary unilateral TKA and commenced rehabilitation within 6 postoperative weeks in which those receiving postacute inpatient or clinic-based rehabilitation were compared with those receiving a home-based program. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers extracted data independently and assessed data quality and validity according to the PRISMA guidelines. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Data were analyzed from June 1, 2015, through June 4, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were mobility (6-minute walk test [6MWT]) and patient-reported pain and function (Oxford knee score [OKS] or Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) reported at 10 to 12 postoperative weeks. The GRADE assessment (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was applied to the primary outcomes. Results: Five unique studies involving 752 unique participants (451 [60%] female; mean [SD] age, 68.3 [8.5] years) compared clinic- and home-based rehabilitation, and 1 study involving 165 participants (112 [68%] female; mean [SD] age, 66.9 [8.0] years) compared inpatient and home-based rehabilitation. Low-quality evidence showed no clinically important difference between clinic- and home-based programs for mobility at 10 weeks (6MWT favoring home program; mean difference [MD], -11.89 m [95% CI, -35.94 to 12.16 m]) and 52 weeks (6MWT favoring home program; MD, -25.37 m [95% CI, -47.41 to -3.32 m]). Moderate-quality evidence showed no clinically important difference between clinic- and home-based programs for patient-reported pain and function at 10 weeks (OKS MD, -0.15 [95% CI, -0.35 to 0.05]) and 52 weeks (OKS MD, 0.10 [95% CI, -0.14 to 0.34]). Conclusions and Relevance: Based on low- to moderate-quality evidence, no superiority of clinic-based or inpatient programs compared with home-based programs was found in the early subacute period after TKA. This evidence suggests that home-based rehabilitation is an appropriate first line of therapy after uncomplicated TKA for patients with adequate social supports

Effect of Inpatient Rehabilitation vs a Monitored Home-Based Program on Mobility in Patients With Total Knee Arthroplasty: The HIHO Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Formal rehabilitation programs, including inpatient programs, are often assumed to optimize recovery among patients after undergoing total knee arthroplasty. However, these programs have not been compared with any outpatient or home-based programs. Objective: To determine whether 10 days of inpatient rehabilitation followed by a monitored home-based program after total knee arthroplasty provided greater improvements than a monitored home-based program alone in mobility, function, and quality of life. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this 2-group, parallel, randomized clinical trial, including a nonrandomized observational group, conducted at 2 public, high-volume arthroplasty hospitals in Sydney, Australia (July 2012-December 2015), 940 patients with osteoarthritis undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty were screened for eligibility. Of the 525 eligible patients consecutively invited to participate, 165 were randomized either to receive inpatient hospital rehabilitation and home-based rehabilitation or to receive home-based rehabilitation alone, and 87 patients enrolled in the observation group. Interventions: Eighty-one patients were randomized to receive 10 days of hospital inpatient rehabilitation followed by an 8-week clinician-monitored home-based program, 84 were randomized to receive the home-based program alone, and 87 agreed to be in the observational group, which included only the home-based program. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mobility at 26 weeks after surgery, measured with the 6-minute walk test. Secondary outcomes included the Oxford Knee Score, which ranges from 0 (worst) to 48 (best) and has a minimal clinically important difference of 5 points; and EuroQol Group 5-Dimension Self-Report Questionnaire (EQ-5D) visual analog scale, which ranges from 0 (worst) to 100 (best), and has a minimal clinically important difference of 23 points. Results: Among the 165 randomized participants, 68% were women, and the cohort had a mean age, 66.9 years (SD, 8.4 years). There was no significant difference in the 6-minute walk test between the inpatient rehabilitation and either of the 2 home program groups (mean difference, -1.01; 95% CI, -25.56 to 23.55), nor in patient-reported pain and function (knee score mean difference, 2.06; 95% CI, -0.59 to 4.71), or quality of life (EQ-5D visual analog scale mean difference, 1.41; 95% CI, -6.42 to 3.60). The number of postdischarge complications for the inpatient group was 12 vs 9 among the home group, and there were no adverse events reported that were a result of trial participation. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults undergoing uncomplicated total knee arthroplasty, the use of inpatient rehabilitation compared with a monitored home-based program did not improve mobility at 26 weeks after surgery. These findings do not support inpatient rehabilitation for this group of patients. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01583153