Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Foot Ankle Int ; 44(10): 972-982, 2023 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37724868

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Persistent posttraumatic/postsurgery ankle edema (PPAE) is edema that persists from 2 weeks to 3 months after injury or surgery. PPAE has negative effects on the healing process and quality of life. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a phytochemical product containing diosmin, coumarin, and arbutin (Linfadren) in addition to the conventional treatment, in patients with PPAE. METHODS: Between October 2018 and February 2020, 60 outpatients with PPAE (42 with ankle fractures and 18 with ankle sprains) were enrolled and randomized (1:1 ratio) to receive either 6-week conventional treatment plus Linfadren (study group) or conventional treatment alone (control group). Primary outcome was ankle edema as measured by the "figure-of-8-20" method. Secondary outcomes were ankle function measured by the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), and patient's overall perceived treatment efficacy. Tolerability of Linfadren was also evaluated. Assessments were performed at baseline, at end of treatment (6 weeks after baseline), and 3 months after the end of treatment (follow-up). A subgroup analysis was also conducted for the injury type (fracture/sprain) to identify if this factor affected the results of the primary outcome measure. RESULTS: At the end of treatment, the study group had a significantly greater improvement in ankle edema, improved ankle function, and more patients who considered this treatment effective compared with the control group. The measured difference in circumference by the figure-of-8-20 method averaged 4% at 6 weeks and 5% at 3 months. No difference between groups was seen in rescue medication. No adverse events were recorded. Subgroup analysis revealed no significant influence of the injury type on the primary outcome measure. CONCLUSION: Linfadren in addition to conventional treatment was more effective than conventional treatment alone in patients with PPAE. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, randomized controlled trial.


Asunto(s)
Fracturas de Tobillo , Traumatismos del Tobillo , Humanos , Tobillo , Calidad de Vida , Traumatismos del Tobillo/tratamiento farmacológico , Traumatismos del Tobillo/cirugía , Edema/tratamiento farmacológico
2.
Clin Rehabil ; 33(5): 904-912, 2019 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30757911

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral administration of Linfadren® in addition to conventional treatment in patients with post-trauma/surgery persistent hand edema. DESIGN: Parallel-group randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Outpatient rehabilitation center. SUBJECTS: A total of 60 outpatients (mean age 48.5 (standard deviation (SD) = 12.3) years) with post-trauma/surgery persistent hand edema. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to either receive six-week conventional treatment plus Linfadren® (Study Group) or conventional treatment (Control Group). MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome was hand edema as measured by figure-of-eight method. Secondary outcomes were hand function, patient's overall perceived treatment effectiveness and rescue medication request. Tolerability of Linfadren® was also evaluated. Assessments were performed at baseline, at the end of treatment and three months after the end of treatment. RESULTS: All patients completed the six-week program and 57 patients (95%) completed the three-month follow-up. At six weeks, the Study Group had significantly greater improvement in hand edema (423.3 (SD = 23.8) mm vs 439.4 (SD = 22.6) mm; P = 0.009) and upper limb function ( Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire: 23.6 (SD = 13.6) vs 37.7 (SD = 15.9); P = 0.005) compared to the Control Group. Moreover, the percentage of patients who perceived treatment as effective was significantly higher in the Study Group than in the Control Group both after treatment (70% vs 37%, P = 0.002) and at follow-up (77% vs 30%, P < 0.0001). The rescue medication request was not different between groups. No adverse events were recorded. CONCLUSION: Linfadren® in addition to conventional treatment was safe and more effective than conventional treatment alone in patients with post-trauma/surgery persistent hand edema.


Asunto(s)
Arbutina/administración & dosificación , Cumarinas/administración & dosificación , Diosmina/administración & dosificación , Edema/terapia , Mano/fisiopatología , Modalidades de Fisioterapia , Adulto , Anciano , Niño , Terapia Combinada , Combinación de Medicamentos , Edema/fisiopatología , Femenino , Traumatismos de la Mano/fisiopatología , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Satisfacción del Paciente , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/fisiopatología
3.
Support Care Cancer ; 27(4): 1471-1480, 2019 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30343411

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of a product containing diosmin, coumarin, and arbutin (Linfadren®) in addition to complex decongestive therapy (CDT) on the management of patients with a breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). METHODS: Fifty outpatients (average age of 56.2 ± 2.7 years, range 28-71) with a BCRL were enrolled for this study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive either CDT consisting of skin care, manual lymphatic drainage, remedial exercises, and elastic compression garment (control group, n = 25) or CDT plus Linfadren® (study group, n = 25). Patients were evaluated before and after treatment and 3 months after the end of treatment. Primary outcomes were reduction of upper limb excess volume (EV) and percentage reduction of excess volume (%REV). Secondary outcomes were improvement in Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire, and patient's perception of treatment effectiveness (PPTE). RESULTS: Addition of Linfadren® to CDT yielded an additional reduction of primary outcomes both after treatment (EV, - 521 ml vs. - 256 ml, P < 0.0001; %REV, - 66.4% vs. - 34%, P = 0.02) and at 3-month follow-up (EV, - 59 ml vs. + 24 ml, P < 0.0001; %REV, - 73.6% vs. - 31.4%, P = 0.004). Moreover, statistically significant differences were found between the two groups for the secondary outcomes after treatment (QuickDASH, P = 0.006; PPTE, P = 0.03) and at 3-month follow-up (QuickDASH, P = 0.006; PPTE, P = 0.02). No patient showed adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Linfadren® in addition to CDT was a safe and effective therapy for reducing BCRL and was better than CDT alone.


Asunto(s)
Arbutina/administración & dosificación , Linfedema del Cáncer de Mama/terapia , Cumarinas/administración & dosificación , Diosmina/administración & dosificación , Adulto , Anciano , Arbutina/efectos adversos , Linfedema del Cáncer de Mama/epidemiología , Terapia Combinada/efectos adversos , Vendajes de Compresión/efectos adversos , Cumarinas/efectos adversos , Diosmina/efectos adversos , Drenaje/efectos adversos , Drenaje/métodos , Terapia por Ejercicio/efectos adversos , Terapia por Ejercicio/métodos , Femenino , Humanos , Masaje/efectos adversos , Masaje/métodos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Cuidados de la Piel/efectos adversos , Cuidados de la Piel/métodos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Extremidad Superior
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...