Treatment related morbidity in breast cancer patients

Background: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) was introduced for staging of the axilla to reduce the number of unnecessary axillary lymph node dissections (ALND’s) and proved to be an accurate and safe procedure to predict metastatic disease in clinically negative axillary lymph nodes. SLNB was expected to have less treatment related morbidity in comparison to ALND. In a multicenter prospective cohort study, long term upper-limb morbidity, perceived disabilities in activities of daily life (ADL) and quality of life (QOL) were assessed before and six weeks, 12 month and 24 month after SLNB or ALND for breast cancer. - \ud Methods: 204 patients with stage I/II breast cancer, mean age 55.6 years (sd: 11.6) entered the study and 181 patients (89%) could be evaluated after two years. Sixty-six patients (32%) underwent SLNB only, and 138 (68%) underwent a level I-II ALND. Reliable and valid assessment instruments were used for assessment of upper limb morbidity, ADL and QOL. Assessment included evaluation of shoulder range of motion, muscle strength, grip strength, pain, upper/forearm circumference, shoulder disability and activities of daily life (ADL) and Quality of Live. - \ud Results: Considerable treatment related upper-limb morbidity was observed. Significant (p<0.05) changes between before and up till two years after surgery were found in almost all assessments of shoulder function, ADL and several QOL subscales. Patients in the ALND group showed significant more changes in range of motion (ROM), grip strength, arm volume, ADL and QOL physical- and role functioning, pain and sleeplessness and arm symptoms compared to the SLNB group. Upper limb morbidity and associated disabilities in ADL are at worse in the early stage (first months) after surgical treatment. Concerning arm edema; in the ALND group arm volume increased significantly at 1 and 2 years follow up. Concerning QOL, significantly differences in mean change over the two years comparing SLNB with ALND were found for physical and role functioning and also for symptom items such as pain, insomnia (sleeplessness) and arm symptoms in favor of the SLNB group. QOL in the SLNB group was just improving in the 2 years after treatment whereas in de ALND group only emotional functioning and future perspective improved. Multivariate linear regression analysis showed that radiation therapy on the axilla is besides ALND an important factor in the prediction of impaired shoulder ROM and arm edema. Radiation therapy on the breast had no influence on shoulder ROM. - \ud Conclusion: 1. Significant treatment related short-term, middle-term and long-term upper limb morbidity and perceived disabilities in ADL and long-term reduction of QOL exist in breast cancer patients. 2. In the assessment of changes in upper limb function, ADL and QOL, ALND is the most frequent found predictor of deterioration. Additional radiation therapy on the axilla predicts a further decrease in shoulder ROM and arm edema. 3. Long-term upper limb morbidity is significantly correlated with disabilities in ADL and worsening of QOL

From satisfaction to expectation: The patient's perspective in lower limb prosthetic care

Neck pain is a common musculoskeletal complaint and a relationship with reduced work-related functional capacity is assumed. A validated instrument to test functional capacity of patients with neck pain is unavailable. The objective of this study was to develop a Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE), which is content valid for determining functional capacity in patients with work related neck disorders (WRND). A review of epidemiological review literature was conducted to identify physical risk factors for WRND. Evidence was found that physical risk factors contribute in development of WRND. Physical risk factors were related to repetitive movements, forceful movements, awkward positions and static contractions of the neck or the neck/shoulder region. An FCE was designed based on the risk factors identified. Eight tests were selected to cover all risk factors: repetitive side reaching, repetitive reaching overhead, static overhead work, front carry, forward static bend neck, overhead lift and the neck strength test. Content validity of this FCE was established by providing the rationale, specific objectives and operational definitions of the FCE. Further research is needed to establish reliability and other aspects of validity of the neck-FCE Aim Worldwide, family- centred and co- ordinated care are seen as the two most desirable and effective methods of paediatric care delivery. This study outlines current views on how team collaboration comprising professionals in paediatric rehabilitation and special education and the parents of children with disabilities should be organized, and analyses the policies of five paediatric rehabilitation settings associated with the care of 44 children with cerebral palsy ( CP) in the Netherlands. Methods For an overview of current ideas on collaboration, written statements of professional associations in Dutch paediatric rehabilitation were examined. The policy statements of the five participating settings were derived from their institutional files. Documents detailing the collaborative arrangements involving the various professionals and parents were evaluated at the institutional level and at the child level. Involvement of the stakeholders was analysed based on team conferences. Results Also in the Netherlands collaboration between rehabilitation and education professionals and parents is endorsed as the key principle in paediatric rehabilitation, with at its core the team conference in which the various priorities and goals are formulated and integrated into a personalized treatment plan. As to their collaborative approaches between rehabilitation centre and school, the five paediatric settings rarely differed, but at the child level approaches varied. Teams were large ( averaging 10.5 members), and all three stakeholder groups were represented, but involvement differed per setting, as did the roles and contributions of the individual team members. Conclusion Collaboration between rehabilitation and education professionals and parents is supported and encouraged nationwide. Views on collaboration have been formulated, and general guidelines on family- centred and co- ordinated care are available. Yet, collaborative practices in Dutch paediatric care are still developing. Protocols that carefully delineate the commitments to collaborate and that translate the policies into practical, detailed guidelines are needed, as they are a prerequisite for successful teamwork