Easy Volumeter in Detection of Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema: A Validity Study


Engin O., AKALIN E., SARIBAY E., Asian C., ŞAHİN E., Alper S.

LYMPHATIC RESEARCH AND BIOLOGY, vol.17, no.5, pp.543-549, 2019 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 17 Issue: 5
  • Publication Date: 2019
  • Doi Number: 10.1089/lrb.2018.0040
  • Journal Name: LYMPHATIC RESEARCH AND BIOLOGY
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Page Numbers: pp.543-549
  • Keywords: lymphedema, water displacement method, volumeter, EARLY-DIAGNOSIS, COMPRESSION THERAPY, WATER DISPLACEMENT, RELIABILITY, BIOIMPEDANCE
  • Dokuz Eylül University Affiliated: Yes

Abstract

Aim and Hypothesis: The standard volumeter is heavy and fragile, and using the same volumeter for different patients can result in hygiene problems. These disadvantages point to the need for the development of a new model of volumeter. The new volumeter put forward in this study is lighter, smaller, sturdier, and easier to clean, while also having its own scale. In this study, the validity of this newly designed volumeter is investigated. Materials and Methods: In the first step, the volume of standard cylinders was measured thrice using a standard volumeter and an easy-measurement volumeter, after which a total of 30 arm volumes of 15 volunteers were measured. In the final stage, the arms of 28 patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema were measured once with both volumeters and the mean results were compared. Results: There was a high degree of consistency between the measured volumes of cylinders of known volume when measured with a standard volumeter and the "Easy volumeter." The measured mean volumes with the two volumeters were assessed with paired sample t-test, resulting in a significance (p value) of 0.927, indicating no difference between the measurements of the two volumeters. The variance of measurement of the devices was assessed with a Levene's test, and the significance (p value) was obtained as 0.981. Based on this result, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, meaning that there is no difference in the variances of measurements of the two volumeters. Likewise, a paired sample t-test was used to evaluate the differences between the mean measurements of the healthy volunteers group, and no difference was detected between the mean arm volumes measured with each volumeter (significance=0.105). The measurements between the two volumeters were also consistent in the lymphedema patient group (involved arm significance = 0.842 and normal arm significance = 0.075). Conclusion: Our study revealed the validity of the newly designed "Easy Volumeter" for the measurement of arm volumes, indicating its appropriateness for use in daily practice.