Invention and Clinical Application of an Oversleeve for Measuring Limb Volume in Postoperative Breast Cancer Patients

Abstract

Background. Lymphedema is a common complication of breast cancer treatment, affecting 1/5 of breast cancer survivors, but there is no reliable way to detect subclinical lymphedema. Objective. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility and reliability of using an oversleeve as a postoperative limb volume measurement tool in breast cancer patients. Methods. Fifty patients were analyzed based on inclusion criteria. A body volume measurement kit was designed based on the drainage volume method and the circumference measurement method. Twenty-two normal healthy people were measured by the drainage volume (LV) and oversleeve measuring limb volume (OMLV) methods, so as to verify the accuracy of OMLV. Twenty-eight patients with lymphedema diagnosed by the circumdiameter measurement (CDM) method were measured with OMLV for comparison. The difference in measurements between OMLV and CDM was compared in 50 patients with early lymphedema diagnosed by the LV method. Results. There was no significant difference between the sleeve method and the drainage volume method in the normal population ( P = 0.74 ). All patients with lymphedema diagnosed by CDM met the diagnostic criteria by the OMLV method. In patients with early lymphedema diagnosed by LV, the diagnostic rate with OMLV was significantly higher than that with CDM ( P = 0.008 ). Conclusion. Similar to LV in the diagnosis of lymphedema, OMLV can effectively improve the diagnostic rate of early lymphedema, providing a new option for the diagnosis and treatment of lymphedema.

Retracted: Invention and Clinical Application of an Oversleeve for Measuring Limb Volume in Postoperative Breast Cancer Patients

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [ 1 ]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process: Discrepancies in scope Discrepancies in the description of the research reported Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described Inappropriate citations Incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article Peer-review manipulation …”

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process:…”