January is traditionally the time of year when everyone starts the New Year fresh with resolutions for change—better organization, healthy living, new beginnings. This year, I want to challenge you to include your patients in your resolution planning. Work with each patient and come up with ideas to help improve their quality of life by, for instance, healing a wound, wearing a splint, keeping blood glucose levels within normal range, elevating the feet.
For resolutions to be effective, a “buy in” must exist. Most people don’t like
being told what they must do and would rather hear what they can do. So be sure to include your patients in the planning process. Ask them their opinion. Ask “What could I do differently to help you with this?” Determine if their treatments could be interfering with their lifestyle. Set mutually compatible goals. Most of all, help promote patients’ search for their own solutions.
To make an informed choice of can do instead of must do, patients must have a clear understanding of the facts, implications, and consequences. The Institute of Medicine defines health literacy as the degree to which individuals have the capacity to understand, obtain, and process basic health information needed to make appropriate health decisions. It’s easy to assume our patients know all the facts, especially if they have had the wound, ostomy, or diagnosis for many years. However, according to the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy, almost 45% of the U.S. population (about 93 million Americans) have, at best, only basic health literacy skills.
To improve their health literacy, review your patients’ understanding of their situation and ask them to describe their diagnosis and treatment plan in their own words. If they can’t describe these correctly, reteach the information. Consider the possibility that you might have to use a new educational approach or method.
A new year and a new start, with a shared understanding of problems and potential solutions between the patient and wound care team can get you started on the pathway to success. To quote Zig Ziglar, “A goal properly set is halfway reached.”
Donna Sardina, RN, MHA, WCC, CWCMS, DWC, OMS
Editor-in-Chief Wound Care Advisor
Cofounder, Wound Care Education Institute
Plainfield, Illinois
By Carrie Carls, BSN, RN, CWOCN, CHRN; Michael Molyneaux, MD; and William Ryan, CHT
Every year, 1.9% of patients with diabetes develop foot ulcers. Of those, 15% to 20% undergo an amputation within 5 years of ulcer onset. During their lifetimes, an estimated 25% of diabetic patients develop a foot ulcer. This article discusses use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in treating diabetic foot ulcers, presenting several case studies.
HBOT involves intermittent administration of 100% oxygen inhaled at a pressure greater than sea level. It may be given in a:
• multi-place chamber (used to treat multiple patients at the same time), compressed to depth by air as the patient breathes 100% oxygen through a face mask or hood (more…)
Each month, Apple Bites brings you a tool you can apply in your daily practice.
Description
• Nonsterile dressings protect open wounds from contamination and absorb drainage.
• Clean aseptic technique should be used to change nonsterile dressings.
• In the event of multiple wounds, each wound is considered a separate treatment. (more…)
Editor’s note: Part 1 of this series, published in the September-October issue, discussed lymphedema pathology and diagnosis. This article, Part 2, covers treatment.
Traditional treatment approaches
Traditionally, lymphedema treatment has been approached without a clear understanding of the underlying structure and function of lymphatic tissues. Ineffective traditional treatments include elevation, elastic garments, pneumatic pumps, surgery, diuretics, and benzopyrones (such as warfarin). Because many traditional treatments are still overused and some may be appropriate for limited use, it’s important for clinicians to understand these approaches.
Elevation
As a sole therapy for lymphedema, elevation of the affected part provides only short-lived results. Ever-increasing macromolecular wastes retain water against the effects of gravity. Increased interstitial colloid osmotic pressure must be addressed by interventions targeted at improving lymphatic function—not just a position change. Otherwise, lymphedema will progress. Furthermore, elevation alone is impractical, promotes deconditioning, and alters lifestyle for prolonged periods.
Elastic garments
Elastic garments prove inadequate because they attempt to treat lymphedema with compression alone. Medically correct garments are engineered with thoughtful attention to high-quality textiles and offer gradient support, which promotes proximal flow. However, without precise tissue stimulation leading to improved lymphangioactivity (lymph-vessel pulsation), macromolecular wastes can’t be removed.
Interstitial pressure increases caused by compression garments impede further fluid accumulation. When these garments are removed, the spontaneous girth increase causes an imprecise fit, and the garment rapidly leads to a countertherapeutic effect. Furthermore, compression garments don’t combat the osmotic forces generated by ever-increasing interstitial wastes. Except in patients diagnosed with stage 0 or stage 1 lymphedema, disease progression involving metaplasia ensues. Although elastic compression garments are a cornerstone of long-term management, they shouldn’t be used as a stand-alone treatment.
Pneumatic compression pump
Formerly, the pneumatic compression pump (PCP) was considered the standard of care for lymphedema. However, when inflated, the pump doesn’t increase the frequency of lymph-vessel contraction or enhance lymph capillary absorption. What’s more, accelerated fibrosis development and rapid tissue refilling occur when a PCP is removed. Also, PCP use disregards the ipsilateral territory of the excised regional nodes, effectively dumping fluid from the leg into the trunk. A PCP is appropriate only when nothing else is available, as it may worsen the patient’s condition.
Surgery
Surgical approaches to treating lymphedema involve either excisional (debulking) or microsurgical techniques. The most extensive surgical technique, the radical Charles procedure, completely debulks all involved tissue down to the muscle fascia. Split-thickness grafts are then harvested from excised skin and donor sites, and applied to the fascia to achieve so-called limb reduction.
Most debulking procedures have been applied to lower-extremity lymphedema and offer poor cosmetic results. Less radical surgeries favor long incisions, preserving the skin but excising subcutaneous edematous portions to reduce girth. Although less cosmetically alarming, these procedures effectively amputate the subcutaneous space where lymph vessels reside. Other surgical approaches are beyond the scope of this article.
Generally, surgery isn’t a good approach for any patient, as it’s linked to significant morbidity, such as skin necrosis, infection, and sensory changes. In the future, less invasive procedures may be available that yield significant improvement without these adverse effects.
Diuretics
Although diuretics are prescribed appropriately to address water-rich edemas of venous origin, they disregard the fact that lymphedema is a protein-rich edema. Long-term, high-dose diuretic therapy leads to treatment-resistant limbs, similar to those that have received intensive pneumatic compression.
Benzopyrones
Benzopyrones such as warfarin decrease swelling by combating protein accumulation in fluid. Such drugs have undergone clinical trials abroad. Their mechanism is to promote macrophage migration into interstitial fluid, as well as subsequent proteolysis. Due to significant risk of liver damage or failure, benzopyrones haven’t been approved for treating lymphedema.
Complete decongestive therapy: The current treatment approach
Currently, the gold standard for lymphedema treatment is complete decongestive therapy (CDT). Michael Foeldi and Etelka Foeldi, who originated this method, discovered a unique symbiotic relationship among five distinct modalities that addresses the challenges of lymphedema treatment. In 1989, CDT was brought to the United States by Robert Lerner and has become the mainstay of lymphedema treatment here.
CDT is a two-phase approach involving an intensive clinical effort followed by a semi-intensive home-care program geared toward autonomous management, stabilization, and continual improvement. It involves manual lymph drainage (MLD), compression bandaging, exercise, skin and nail hygiene, and self-care education. (See Phases of complete decongestive therapy by clicking the PDF icon above.)
Manual lymph drainage
A type of soft-tissue mobilization, MLD provides skin traction, stimulating superficial lymph vessels and nodes. Lymph capillaries contain large inter-endothelial inlets called swinging tips, akin to overlapping shingles. Each overlapping cell is tethered to the interstitial matrix by anchoring filaments, so that fluid increases cause immediate distention and lymph inflow. Manual skin traction using MLD promotes greater lymph fluid uptake by stretching these filamentous structures, opening the swinging tips.
MLD also provides extrinsic stimulation of the lymphangion (the segment of a lymph vessel between a distal and proximal valve), drawing fluid into the system at the capillary level and promoting flow at the vessel level toward regional lymph nodes. Usually, these segments contract and relax in a rhythmic fashion six times per minute. MLD triples this output to 18 or 20 times per minute, greatly enhancing systemic transport.
MLD requires intensive daily treatment sessions to strengthen collateral flow as a pathway to circumventing surgical or developmental lymphatic disruption. Treatment strategies further recruit more deeply situated lymphatics such as the thoracic duct, as well as lumbar trunks that empty at the juncture of the internal jugular and subclavian veins to improve global uptake. MLD thus stimulates deeper vessel angioactivity to help drain the superficial vessels that drain toward them.
Compression bandaging
Compression bandaging provides tissue support after MLD to prevent reflux, slow new fluid formation, and mechanically soften fibrotic areas. Bandaging techniques provide a high working pressure to harness the muscle and joint pumps as a propellant for lymph while resisting retrograde flow created by gravity and centrifugal forces during movement. Pure cotton materials coupled with specialized padding create a soft, castlike environment, which confines swollen tissues without constriction. By relying on high working pressure and low resting pressures to decrease limb swelling, this strategy achieves greater control over intensity (level of compression/pressure exerted), with little to no soft-tissue injury or discomfort.
The patient wears this bulky inelastic complex after each MLD treatment until the next day’s session to ensure limb-volume reduction in a stable, linear fashion. Once a plateau is reached, tissue stabilization and self-care education are the goals of additional sessions.
Exercise
Exercise always must be done with adequate support to counteract fluid formation. During the intensive CDT phase, limbs are bandaged to provide complete around-the-clock containment. Gentle exercises encourage blood flow into the muscle; during muscle contraction, this creates a favorable internal pressure that effectively squeezes the subcutaneous space between the bandage wall and muscle. Because every bandage strives to provide a gradient of support, fluid tends to drain proximally to the bandage—in most cases, to the trunk.
Skin and nail hygiene
Without intact, well-hydrated skin, cellulitic infections occur in many lymphedema patients whose immune response has been diminished by regional lymphadenectomy or inherited deficiencies. To prevent infection caused by avoidable external events, patients receive clear guidelines to reinforce appropriate behavior. As most cellulitis results from resident skin pathogens (streptococci and staphylococci), maintaining a low skin pH helps control colonization. Ways to avoid recurrent infections include maintaining an acid mantle on the skin using low-pH-formulated lotions and avoiding injury from daily tasks that may scratch, puncture, burn, or abrade the skin. Patients should receive lists of self-care precautions at the time of treatment.
Self-care education
Because lymphedema is a chronic condition, patients must receive self-care education for daily management to avoid lymphedema destabilization, which can lead to tissue saturation and subsequent skin changes. Therapists must provide patients with appropriate self-care tools and knowledge to maintain adequate treatment results. Teaching topics include how to apply and remove compression garments and bandages and how to exercise safely, preserve skin integrity, monitor for infection, and respond appropriately to infection and significant changes in limb mobility.
An underrecognized and mistreated problem
Lymphedema remains an underrecognized and mistreated condition, even though CDT yields safe, reliable results. Early detection, accurate staging, proper diagnosis, and appropriate treatment can slow the inevitable progression of lymphedema. Wound care specialists should adapt wound therapy to address not just the wound but the edematous environment responsible for delayed wound resolution.
Selected references
Al-Niaimi F, Cox N. Cellulitis and lymphedema: a vicious cycle. J Lymphoedema. 2009;4:38-42.
Browse N, Burnand KG, Mortimer PS. Diseases of the Lymphatics. London: Hodder Arnold; 2003.
Casley-Smith JR, Casley-Smith JR. Modern Treatment for Lymphoedema. 5th ed. The Lymphoedema Association of Australia; 1997.
Cooper R, White R. Cutaneous infections in lymphoedema. J Lymphoedema. 2009:4:44-8.
Foeldi M. Foeldi’s Textbook of Lymphology: For Physicians and Lymphedema Therapists. 3rd ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2012.
International Society of Lymphology. The diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema. Consensus Document of the International Society of Lymphology. Lymphology. 2009 Jun;42(2):51-60.
Leduc A, Bastin R, Bourgeois P. Lymphatic reabsorption of proteins and pressotherapies. Progress in Lymphology XI. 1988:591-2.
National Lymphedema Network Medical Advisory Committee. Position Statement: Lymphedema Risk Reduction Practices. Revised May 2012. http://www.lymphnet.org/pdfDocs/nlnriskreduction.pdf. Accessed September 5, 2012.
Pappas CJ, O’Donnell TF Jr. Long-term results of compression treatment for lymphedema. J Vasc Surg. 1992 Oct;16(4):555-62.
Whittlinger H. Textbook of Dr. Vodder’s Manual Lymphatic Drainage. Vol 1. 7th ed. New York, NY: Thieme; 2003.
Steve Norton is cofounder of Lymphedema & Wound Care Education and executive director of the Norton School of Lymphatic Therapy in Matawan, New Jersey.
Staphylococcus aureus is one of the most feared human pathogens, causing a wide range of infections. Most wound care professionals can expect to frequently encounter patients with S. aureus infections. Soft-tissue infections caused by S. aureus include impetigo, cellulitis, and cutaneous abscesses, as well as such life-threatening processes as necrotizing fasciitis and pyomyositis (a hematogenous intramuscular abscess). Serious non-soft-tissue infections include septic arthritis, osteomyelitis, pneumonia, endocarditis, and sepsis.
Why is S. aureus such a nasty bug?
S. aureus produces various cellular and extracellular factors involved in the pathogenesis of infection. S. aureus protein A, an important surface protein, helps the organism resist phagocytosis. Also, S. aureus produces several cytotoxins and enzymes that contribute to infection spread and severity. In addition, some strains produce toxins (including toxic shock syndrome toxin-1) that function as superantigens—molecules that nonspecifically trigger release of large amounts of cytokines, leading to a sepsislike condition. Taken together, such factors combine to make S. aureus a dangerous pathogen.
MRSA emergence
When penicillin was introduced in the 1940s, virtually all S. aureus isolates were sensitive to that drug. But soon thereafter, S. aureus strains that produced a β-lactamase enzyme capable of inactivating penicillin became widespread. During the 1950s, outbreaks of penicillin-resistant S. aureus occurred in many U.S. hospitals. Introduction of penicillinase-resistant antibiotics, such as methicillin and oxacillin, temporarily restored the ability to treat all strains of this pathogen using penicillin antibiotics. The first strain of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) was described in 1961 shortly after introduction of penicillinase-resistant antibiotics.
The mechanism of methicillin resistance involves a mutation in one of the bacterial cell-wall proteins to which penicillins must bind to kill the bacterium. This mutation renders the organism resistant to all penicillins and penems and almost all cephalosporins.
MRSA incidence has increased steadily to the point where it currently constitutes up to 60% of S. aureus isolates in many U.S. hospitals. These organisms commonly carry genetic material that makes them resistant to various non-β lactam antibiotics as well, leading some to suggest that the term MRSA should stand for multiply resistant S. aureus. S. aureus has continued to mutate in the face of persistent antibiotic pressure. Vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (VISA) was described in 1997; vancomycin-resistant S. aureus (VRSA), in 2003. Fortunately, these two strains remain rare and haven’t become established pathogens. (See Strains of antibiotic-resistantS. aureus by clicking the PDF icon above.)
Healthcare- versus community-acquired MRSA
Although MRSA initially arose and spread within healthcare settings (chiefly acute-care hospitals), a community-based variant was described in 1998. Called community-
acquired MRSA (CA-MRSA), this variant differs from healthcare-associated MRSA (HCA-MRSA) in more ways than the acquisition site. CA-MRSA occurs predominately in otherwise healthy children and young adults.
It most commonly presents as recurrent cutaneous abscesses, although life-threatening infections (such as necrotizing fasciitis and pneumonia) also have occurred. The propensity to cause cutaneous abscesses isn’t fully understood but may relate partly to production of the Panton-Valentine toxin by many CA-MRSA isolates.
In contrast, HCA-MRSA afflicts mainly older patients, particularly those with chronic illnesses, including chronic wounds. It typically causes wound infections, urinary tract infections, pneumonia, and bacteremia.
Besides these epidemiologic and clinical differences, many CA-MRSA isolates derive from a single clone, known as clone USA 300, whereas HCA-MRSA is composed of multiple non-USA 300 clones. Finally, many CA-MRSA isolates are sensitive to non-β
lactam antibiotics, whereas most HCA-MRSA isolates resist multiple antibiotics. More recently, the distinction between CA-MRSA and HCA-MRSA has been blurred as evidence emerges that CA-MRSA now is being transmitted in healthcare settings as well as in the community.
S. aureus carrier state
Staphylococci are frequent colonizers of humans. Common colonization sites include the skin, anterior nares, axillae, and inguinal regions. Individuals can be colonized continuously or transiently, with nasal carriage rates varying from 20% to 40%. Most S. aureus infections result from the strain carried by the infected patient.
Three patterns of S. aureus carriage exist in humans:
• 20% of individuals are continuously colonized.
• 30% of individuals are intermittently colonized.
• 50% of individuals are never colonized.
The highest carriage rates occur in patients receiving frequent injections (such as insulin-dependent diabetics, hemodialysis patients, and I.V. drug users) and those with chronic skin conditions (for instance, psoriasis or eczema). In the general population, MRSA carriage rates have increased to 1% or 2%, with clinical consequences hinging on the colonizing strain (CA-MRSA versus HCA-MRSA) and host characteristics. The most consistent carriage site is the anterior nares, but many other sites may carry this pathogen, including the axillae, inguinal regions, and perirectal area.
MRSA treatment
Therapy for MRSA infection depends on the infection location and antibiotic sensitivity of the infecting strain.
• Cutaneous abscesses are treated by incision and drainage; antibiotics play a secondary role to adequate drainage.
• Therapy for necrotizing fasciitis caused by MRSA involves aggressive debridement with removal of all necrotic tissue, plus adequate antibiotic therapy. Typically, patients require serial debridement followed by subsequent careful wound care, often with eventual skin grafting.
• Pyomyositis treatment entails drainage of the muscle abscess (which sometimes can be done with percutaneous tube placement instead of open drainage), plus appropriate antibiotic therapy.
Vancomycin has been the mainstay of I.V. therapy for MRSA for decades, but some clinicians are concerned that its effectiveness may be declining due to slowly increasing minimum inhibitory concentrations (the minimum concentration of an
antibiotic needed to inhibit pathogen growth). Other parenteral options have emerged in the last few years. (See I.V. drugs used to treat MRSA by clicking the PDF icon above.) Several oral antibiotics also are available for MRSA treatment. (See Oral agents used to treat MRSA by clicking the PDF icon above.)
Knowing the antibiotic sensitivity pattern of the infecting MRSA strain is crucial to ensuring that the patient receives an appropriate antibiotic. Treatment duration for soft-
tissue infections usually ranges from 7 to 14 days, but bacteremia and bone or joint infections call for more prolonged therapy.
Efforts to eradicate MRSA carriage
Because the carrier state increases the risk of subsequent S. aureus infection, efforts have been made to eradicate carriage. Unfortunately, this has proven to be difficult. A commonly used regimen involves 5 days of twice-daily mupirocin nasal ointment with either chlorhexidine gluconate showers or immersion up to the neck in a dilute bleach solution. However, success in eliminating carriage is limited, although the bleach bath seems to improve eradication rates better than other modalities.
Controlling MRSA in hospitals
How best to control MRSA spread within hospitals is controversial. Some experts advocate an aggressive, “search and destroy” approach involving screening all patients for nasal carriage on admission and initiating contact precautions with subsequent decolonization efforts. Others focus on improving the overall level of hand hygiene and other general infection-control measures, arguing that nasal screening misses at least 20% of MRSA-colonized patients and thus gives an unwarranted sense of security.
Many hospitals use a mixed approach, screening patients suspected to be at high risk for MRSA carriage (such as those admitted from extended-care facilities or to the intensive care unit), while simultaneously trying to improve hand hygiene and general infection-control measures. Recent data suggest MRSA colonization and infection rates have stopped increasing and are beginning to decline.
MRSA is one of the most problematic pathogens encountered on a regular basis, and among the most dangerous pathogens we face. While some MRSA infections are relatively mild, many are serious or life-threatening. Severe soft-tissue infections, such as necrotizing fasciitis and pyomyositis, require surgical debridement or drainage, appropriate antibiotic therapy, and assistance from a wound-care professional to achieve optimal outcomes. n
Selected references
Calfee DP. The epidemiology, treatment and prevention of transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Infus Nurs. 2011 Nov-Dec;34(6):359-64.
DeLeo FR, Otto M, Kreiswirth BN, Chambers HF. Community-associated meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Lancet. 2010 May 1;375(9725): 1557-68.
Ippolito G, Leone S, Lauria FN, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: the superbug. Int J Infect Dis. 2010 Oct;14 Suppl 4:S7-11.
Landrum ML, Neumann C, Cook C, et al. Epidemiology of Staphylococcus aureus blood and skin and soft tissue infections in the US military health system, 2005-2010. JAMA. July 4;308:50-9.
Lee AS, Huttner B, Harbarth S. Control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2011 Mar;25(1):155-79.
Moellering RC Jr. MRSA: the first half century. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012 Jan;67(1):4-11.
Otter JA, French GL. Community-associated meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains as a cause of healthcare-associated infection. J Hosp Infect. 2011 Nov:79(3):189-93.
Rivera AM, Boucher HW. Current concepts in antimicrobial therapy against select gram-positive organisms: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, penicillin-resistant pneumococci, and vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Mayo Clin Proc. 2011 Dec;86(12):1230-43.
Simor AE. Staphylococcal decolonization: an effective strategy for prevention of infection? Lancet Infect Dis. 2011 Dec;11(12):952-62.
Joseph G. Garner is director of the infectious disease division and hospital epidemiologist at the Hospital of Central Connecticut and a professor of medicine at the University of Connecticut.
The most basic principle of healing a wound is to determine the cause—and then remove it. This is easier said than done, as many wounds have similar characteristics and we don’t always know all the facts leading up to the wound.
The process has been unnecessarily complicated by the recent pressure (no pun intended) to avoid at all costs calling a pressure ulcer a pressure ulcer. I use the term “unnecessarily” because it doesn’t matter what it’s called—a pressure ulcer, decubitus, “de-cube,” or bedsore—because in the end, the general idea is it’s bad news.
So what’s behind the desire to avoid calling it a pressure ulcer? First, a pressure ulcer has traditionally been equated to poor nursing care. As Florence Nightingale, the “Mother of Nursing,” wrote:
“If he has a bedsore, it’s generally not the fault of the disease, but of the nursing.”
No one likes to feel that he or she gave poor care, and as more hospital complications data are available to the public, reports of complications such as pressure ulcers affect people’s perceptions—right or wrong—about the care a hospital delivers.
The second reason gets at the “at all costs” part of the desire. The recent attention given to Medicare’s “present on admission” rule and “never” events has
elevated pressure ulcers high up the chain of “no-no’s” and put the hospital at risk for nonreimbursement. And many private insurers have followed Medicare’s lead in denying coverage for pressure ulcers that occur in the hospital. Unfortunately, all the focus on reimbursement is beginning to challenge even the best wound care experts, who simply want to get the patient’s wound healed.
Pressure from upper management has resulted in experts trying to bargain and rationalize their way out of calling it what it is (a pressure ulcer), instead calling it a bruise, not a deep-tissue injury. Or saying, “This is a shearing ulcer, not a pressure ulcer.” Or, my favorite: “It’s not an ischial pressure ulcer but a diabetic ulcer because the patient is a diabetic.” Wound care experts are being forced to question and doubt themselves because money, quality assurance, and reputation are on the line when an in-house wound is labeled a pressure ulcer.
Like crime scene investigation, determining wound etiology requires us to gather all the facts. Once the facts are in, systematically comparing and contrasting the clinical findings aids differential identification to pin down the type of wound present. It’s important that we assess and investigate all the following when searching for the cause:
• patient’s medical history
• recent activities (such as surgery, extensive X-rays, or long emergency-
department waits)
• comorbidities
• specific wound characteristics, such as location, distribution, shape, wound bed, and surrounding skin.
Naming the wound is an important first step in intervening. If the wound is caused by pressure, call it a pressure ulcer and jump into action. Remove the cause, heal the wound, and prevent further breakdown. Don’t let yourself be influenced by those who aren’t experts in wound care.
Donna Sardina, RN, MHA, WCC, CWCMS, DWC, OMS
Editor-in-Chief Wound Care Advisor
Cofounder, Wound Care Education Institute
Plainfield, Illinois
Lymphedema is characterized by regional immune dysfunction, distorted limb contours, and such skin changes as papillomas, hyperkeratosis, and increased girth. The condition may involve the limbs, face, neck, trunk, and external genitals; its effects may include psychological distress. For optimal patient management, clinicians must understand what causes lymphedema and how it’s diagnosed and treated.
This two-part series provides an overview of lymphedema. Part 1 covers etiology, pathology, and diagnosis. Part 2, which will appear in the November-
December issue, will focus on treatment.
Causes of lymphedema
Lymphedema occurs when protein-rich fluid accumulates in the interstitium due to impaired lymphatic function. Proteins, other macromolecular wastes, and water constitute lymphatic loads. These wastes rely on specially structured absorptive and transport structures in peripheral regions for their return to central circulation.
When lymph stasis prevails, inflammatory processes and lymphostatic fibrosis trigger tissue-density changes, further entrapping superficial vessels and accelerating mechanical insufficiency. (See Physiologic changes caused by lymphatic disruption by clicking the PDF icon above.)
Classifying lymphedema
Lymphedema can be primary or secondary. Primary lymphedema either is congenital (present at birth) or arises around puberty. In the vast majority of cases, it is associated with structural changes in the lymphatic system and isn’t associated with another disease or condition. Most structural changes (87%) manifest before age 35 and cause hypoplasia of vessels and nodes. Syndromes involving hyperplasia, node fibrosis, or aplasia also may occur, although they’re much less common. Dysplasia (either hypoplasia, hyperplasia, or aplasia) predisposes drainage regions to inadequate lymph collection, resulting in edema and secondary tissue changes, such as chronic inflammation and reactive fibrosis. Genetic variability in lymphatic constitution may explain why seemingly similar patients receiving the same surgical protocol have different lymphedema risks over time. Secondary lymphedema stems from a significant insult to lymphatic tissues, as from lymphadenectomy, radiation therapy, trauma, infection, or cancer. It commonly results from direct trauma to regional nodes or vessel structures. Slow degradation of lymphatic function also occurs when adjacent tissues (such as superficial and deep veins) become diseased, when cellulitis occurs, or when accumulations
of adipose or radiation fibrosis mechanical-ly disrupt drainage of skin lymphatics.
Lymphedema stages
Lymphedema progresses in stages, which involve secondary connective-tissue disease combined with disturbed fluid update and transport. These conditions cause a universal and classic clinical picture.
• Stage 0 (latency stage) is marked by reduced transport capacity and functional reserve. The patient has no visible or palpable edema, but has such subjective complaints as heaviness, tightness, and waterlogged sensations.
• In Stage 1 edema (reversible lymphedema), edema decreases with elevation. Pitting edema is present, but fibrosis is absent.
• During Stage 2 (spontaneously irreversible lymphedema), lymphedema doesn’t resolve entirely, although it may fluctuate. Pitting is more pronounced and fibrosis is present.
• Stage 3 (lymphostatic elephantiasis) is marked by dermal hardening, nonpitting edema, papillomas, hyperkeratosis, and in some cases, extreme girth.
Assessment and diagnosis
Diagnosing lymphedema can be challenging because edema may be associated with other diseases and disorders. For a summary of signs and symptoms, see Clinical findings in lymphedema by clicking the PDF icon above.
Discomfort and skin appearance
Lymphedema rarely causes pain because the skin accommodates gradual, insidious fluid accumulation. However, secondary orthopedic discomfort may result from increased weight of the affected limb due to deconditioning or decreased range of motion.
Because lymphedema usually progresses slowly, gravity and centrifugal forces pull fluids toward distal limb areas, causing an entrenched, stubborn pitting edema. Later, further valvular incompetence contributes to worsening distal edema in the fingers, toes, and dorsal regions of the hand and foot. Prominent lower-extremity structures, such as the malleolus, patella, tibia, anterior tibialis tendon, and Achilles tendon, become progressively less distinct. This creates a columnar limb appearance; the swollen limb has the same girth from distal to proximal aspects, unlike the natural cone shape of a normal limb.
Lymphatic failure doesn’t tax the venous system, so skin color remains normal. Blood supply remains patent, helping to prevent secondary ulcers.
Severity
Lymphedema severity correlates directly with such factors as onset of the condition and extent of cancer therapy, if given (number of nodes resected, number of positive nodes, and use of radiotherapy). Lymphedema may worsen with a greater number of infection episodes, weight gain, injury, diuretics, limb disuse, pneumatic compression therapy (when used for pure lymphedema), and ill-fitting compression garments. The single most important contributor to increasing lymphedema severity is lack of patient education, which can result in improper treatment or none at all.
Opportunistic infections
Lymphedema causes regional immune suppression and leads to an increase in opportunistic infections such as cellulitis. As skin integrity suffers, scaling and dryness allow resident skin pathogens (such as streptococci and staphylococci) to gain access through the defective skin barrier into protein-rich interstitial fluid, creating a medium favorable to bacterial colonization. Lymphocyte migration decreases, and dissected or irradiated nodal sites are slow to detect invaders. Furthermore, stagnant lymph promotes further delays in the immune response. Patients with opportunistic infections may exhibit high fever, local erythema, regional hypersensitivity or acute pain, flulike symptoms, and rapidly advancing “map-like” borders in the skin.
Differential diagnosis
Several methods can aid differential diagnosis. Clinical findings. Lymphedema can be diagnosed from patient history, physical examination, palpation, and inspection. Trauma to lymph nodes (each of which governs a distinct body region) decreases the transport capacity of lymph formed in that region, in turn causing local swelling (lymphedema). Trauma to the axillary or inguinal lymph nodes, which exist on both the left and right of the body and in both the upper and lower regions, predisposes these quadrants to swelling. Therefore, if lymph nodes on only one side are damaged, lymphedema occurs only on that side of the body. Using the universal characteristics cited above as a guide, while ruling out cancer recurrence, acute deep vein thrombosis, or plasma protein abnormalities, yields sufficient data to form a diagnosis. Imaging. Lymphography involves subcutaneous injection of a lymph vessel–
specific dye (Patent Blue V), followed by X-ray. Although it provides high-resolution images of lymphatic structures, this technique is invasive, painful, damaging to lymphatics, and potentially lethal—and therefore is no longer recommended.
Lymphangioscintigraphy (LAS) uses interdigital subcutaneous injection of protein-labeled radioisotopes, followed by
imaging at specific intervals to gather information about uptake and transport time. Images are hazy and false-negatives are common, so well-trained radiotherapists familiar with lymphology and lymphedema should administer and interpret the test. Also, experts don’t agree on standard criteria for LAS administration, so measures may not be similarly conclusive. Limb-measuring instruments and methods. Serial measurement of affected limb circumference using a standard garment tape measure is the most widely accessible approach. Intra-rater reliability is comparable to that of currently used tools; however, these methods can’t be used for early detection, for screening, or when various raters are used to assess the same patient. Circumferences are measured at four points and are considered positive if a distance of 2 cm or more separates the involved from uninvolved extremity in comparison. Water displacement techniques for limb-volume calculation, although accurate, are impractical in most clinical settings and rarely used.
Various devices have been used to obtain measurements. For instance, the Perometer® uses optoelectronic volumetry. By scanning the limb with infrared beams circumferentially, the device accurately records girth at 4-mm intervals along the limb length and transmits these measurements to a computer. The Perometer is used mainly in the research setting. Preoperative and postoperative measurements at intervals can detect lymphedema early.
Impedimed XCA® uses bioelectrical
impedance to calculate ratios of intracellular to extracellular fluid. A weak electrical current is passed through affected and unaffected limbs, allowing comparison of results. Impedance is lower in edematous tissue, supporting an accurate diagnosis.
Next step: Treatment
Once a diagnosis is made, the next step is treatment. Part 2 of this series covers lymphedema treatment.
Selected references
Foeldi M. Foeldi’s Textbook of Lymphology: For Physicians and Lymphedema Therapists. 3rd ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2012.
Kubik S, Manestar M. Anatomy of the lymph capillaries and precollectors of the skin. In: Bollinger A, Partsch H, Wolfe JHN, eds. The Initial Lymphatics. Stuttgart: Thieme-Verlag; 1985:66-74.
Lee B, Andrade M, Bergan J, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of primary lymphedema. Consensus document of the International Union of Phlebology (IUP)—2009. Int Angiol. 2010 Oct;29(5):454-70.
Lerner R. Chronic lymphedema. In: Prasad H, Olsen ER, Sumpio BE, Chang JB, eds. Textbook of Angiology. Springer; 2000.
Mayrovitz HN. Assessing lymphedema by tissue indentation force and local tissue water. Lymphology. 2009 June;42(2):88-98
Pecking AP, Alberini JL, Wartski M, et al. Relationship between lymphoscintigraphy and clinical findings in lower limb lymphedema (LO): toward a comprehensive staging. Lymphology. 2008 Mar;41(1):1-10.
Stanton AW, Northfield JW, Holroyd, B, et al. Validation of an optoelectronic volumeter (Perometer). Lymphology. 1997 June;30(2):77-97
Weissleder H, Schuchhardt C. Lymphedema: Diagnosis and Therapy. 4th ed. Viavital Verlag GmbH; 2007.
Steve Norton is cofounder of Lymphedema & Wound Care Education and executive director of the Norton School of Lymphatic Therapy in Matawan, New Jersey.
