الفهرس 
Kinesiotaping combined with intermittent pneumatic compression Versus
Abstract EnglishOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 172 |  |  |
| | | from | 172 | | |
Abstract
Background: The breast cancer is the most common cancers among women. Lymphedema is chronic and progressive condition it considered as a one of the most serious problems of breast cancer. Kinesiotaping (KT) for lymphatic drainage is a new choice in the physiotherapy field for removing congestion of lymphatic fluid under the skin. Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) is often suggested in the field of physical treatment of lymphedema.Multi-layer bandaging for breast cancer related lymphedema is gradient compression suggests that the pressure over distal parts of the extremity has always to be higher than over proximal parts because they receive more layers, to promote moving lymph fluids from higher to lower pressure areas. Objectives: This study was designed to investigate the effects of Kinesiotaping (KT) combined with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) Versus Multilayer bandage (MLB) on Postmastectomy lymphedema on limb volume and function». Methods: Forty-Five Female subjects with postmastectomy lymphedema were divided randomly into three equal groups. group ”A” received complex decongestive physical therapy (CDP) added to KT combined with IPC while group ”B” received CDP added to MLB. group ”C” (control group) received CDP only, all groups received treatment three times/week for four weeks.Volumetric Measurement, Circumference, Anthropometric Limb measure and Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questioner for upper limb were used to evaluate subjects{u2019} functional activity of daily living (ADL) at three intervals (pre-treatment, post-treatment and After three months follow-up). Results: Statistical analysis showed that there was a significant improvement within-group pre-post treatment in Volumetric measure, Anthropometric Limb measure and DASH at groups A, B and C as (p<0.05), groups A and B were superior to group C. After follow-up there was a significant deterioration in value of all variables in groups B and C as (p<0.05), while there was no significant deterioration in group A.