Concurrent Validity of Upper-Extremity Volume Estimates: Comparison of Calculated Volume Derived From Girth Measurements and Water Displacement Volume

Abstract

Background and Purpose. The volume of all limbs can be determined by water displacement methods or calculations derived from girth measurements. The purpose of this study was to determine the concurrent validity of calculated volume and water displacement volume measurements. Subjects. Both upper extremities of 14 women with lymphedema were measured. Methods. Volumetric measurements were taken with a volumeter, and circumferential measurements were taken with a tape measure. Calculated volume was determined by summing segment volumes derived from the truncated cone formula. Pearson product moment correlations, paired t tests, and linear regression tests were used to assess relative association and absolute differences between calculated and actual volumes. Results. The correlation coefficient for calculated volume versus upper extremity minus fingers (UE-F) water displacement volume was .99. Paired t tests showed differences between calculated volume and UE-F water displacement volume (t=−3.88, mean difference=−95.62 mL), and the linear regression slope was 0.83 with an intercept of 255.28 mL. Discussion and Conclusion. Calculated volume measurements were highly associated with measurements based on water displacement; therefore, clinicians should feel confident in using either calculated volume or water displacement volume. The differences, however, indicated that the measures were not interchangeable. Thus, clinicians should not mix or substitute measurement methods with a single patient or in a single study.

Local tissue water assessed by tissue dielectric constant: anatomical site and depth dependence in women prior to breast cancer treatment‐related surgery

“…The arm total volume is then determined by the sum of all segment volumes. This method of estimating limb volume has been extensively tested and validated (Casley-Smith, 1994;Latchford & Casley-Smith, 1997;Mayrovitz et al, 2000aMayrovitz et al, ,b, 2007aKarges et al, 2003;Mayrovitz, 2003). For comparison purposes, arms were designated as either dominant or nondominant depending on the handedness of the subject.…”

“…A variety of methods are available to assess overall limb oedema. These include metric and volume measures (Casley-Smith, 1994;Sander et al, 2002;Karges et al, 2003;Mayrovitz, 2003;Meijer et al, 2004;Mayrovitz et al, 2005Mayrovitz et al, , 2006Mayrovitz et al, , 2007a, automated methods (Mayrovitz et al, 2000b;Moseley et al, 2002;Stanton et al, 1997;Tierney et al, 1996) and electrical impedance-type methods (Cornish et al, 1998(Cornish et al, , 2001(Cornish et al, , 2002Ward, 2006). However, these methods are not generally suitable to determine local oedema or oedema in body parts other than the limbs.…”

Volumetric evaluation of upper extremities in 250 healthy persons

“…Some of these methods are expensive and not regularly accessible for physical therapists while limb circumference and water displacement measurements are common in physical therapy practice (Casley-Smith, 1994;Stizia, 1995;Boland & Adams, 1996;Perrin & Guex, 2000). Limb volume measurements by girth measurements or water displacement are both reliable and highly correlated but not interchangeable (Sander et al, 2002;Karges et al, 2003).…”

Lymphedema and concomitant venous comorbidity in the extremity: Comprehensive evaluation, management strategy, and outcomes

“…The limb circumferential measures have been demonstrated to be reliable and reproducible in the literature. 15,19,[26][27][28][29] We have recently performed studies with volumetric measurement using CT scans and have found statistically significant correlation between circumferential measurements and CT volumetric measurements (under submission).…”