A Randomized Clinical Controlled Study Comparing the Effect of Modified Manual Edema Mobilization Treatment with Traditional Edema Technique in Patients with a Fracture of the Distal Radius

The Effectiveness of Manual Lymphatic Drainage in Patients With Orthopedic Injuries

“…One study 11 was excluded because it was rated as level 4 evidence, using 5 participants in a single-subject A-B design. Therefore, 3 met the inclusion criteria [12][13][14] and were included. • All 3 of the studies included in this CAT reported improvements in at least 1 outcome measure after the lymphatic drainage treatments.…”

“…• All 3 of the studies included in this CAT reported improvements in at least 1 outcome measure after the lymphatic drainage treatments. [12][13][14] • The primary outcome that was common to the 3 studies was edema, as determined by volumeter measurements or girth circumference. Secondary outcomes included pain, range of motion, activities of daily living, and perceived performance and satisfaction.…”

Treatment Techniques for Edema Reduction During the Acute Stage of the Inflammatory Cycle: A Systematic Review

“…The 13 studies 20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32 that met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated varied in population, location, injury, inclusion/exclusion criteria and methodological quality. The subject populations consisted of volunteers and hospitalized patients that were recruited.…”

“…Of the 13 studies, 5 of the studies had specific criteria for inclusion and exclusion from the study. 21,23,24,28,30 The remaining 8 studies had a detailed inclusion or exclusion criteria but not both or had both but one was not thoroughly detailed. 20,22,25,26,27,29,31,32 The inclusion criteria included acute injuries, 20,27,30,31,32 surgical intervention, 22, 23, 28, 30, and one study used healthy subjects 26 .…”

“…The exclusion criteria included any chronic lymphatic conditions, 20 21, 23, 24, 25, 7 28, 29 excessive musculoskeletal injury, 20,21,23,25,29,30 and several other general medical exclusions that were inconsistent between studies. 20,21,23,24,25,29 The methodological quality ranged from a 2 28 to 8 25 with a mean average score of 4.5.…”