Regarding the Necessity of Functional Assessment Including Motor Control Assessment of Post-Mastectomy Patients Qualified for Latissimus Dorsi Breast Reconstruction Procedure—Pilot Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. Assessment with DASH Questionnaire
3.2. Scapular Position Static Assessment
3.3. Shoulder Active Mobility Assessment
3.4. Latissimus Dorsi Flexibility Assessment
3.5. Motor Control Assessment
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zachorowania i zgony na nowotwory złośliwe w Polsce. Available online: http://onkologia.org.pl/k/epidemiologia/ (accessed on 15 August 2017).
- Szadowska-Szlachetka, Z.; Stanisławek, A.; Charzyńska-Gula, M.; Kachaniuk, H.; Muzyczka, K.; Kocka, K. Differences in the quality of life of women before and after breast reconstruction measured with the use of EORTC QLQ-C 30 and EORTC QLQ-BR 23 scale. Menopausal. Rev. 2013, 3, 254–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fentiman, I.S.; Farhadi, J. Breast reconstruction: Àla carte not table d’hote. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2012, 38, 269–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wysocki, W.; Komorowski, A. Post-mastectomy reconstructive operations of the mammae: Indications, techniques and results. Med. Prakt. Chir. 2002, 1, 113–130. [Google Scholar]
- Fries, A.; Reinhard, G. Effects of mastectomy on dimensions of psychological and psychosocial experience and behavior of affected women. Die Rehabil. 1996, 35, 54–64. [Google Scholar]
- Moyer, A.; Salovey, P. Predictors of Social Support and Psychological Distress in Women with Breast Cancer. J. Heal. Psychol. 1999, 4, 177–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerling, M.E.; Brown, S.H. Architectural analysis and predicted functional capability of the human latissimus dorsi muscle. J. Anat. 2013, 223, 112–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogduk, N.; Johnson, G.; Spalding, D. The morphology and biomechanics of latissimus dorsi. Clin. Biomech. 1998, 13, 377–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carvalhais, V.O.D.C.; Ocarino, J.D.M.; Araújo, V.L.; De Souza, T.R.; Silva, P.; Fonseca, S.T. Myofascial force transmission between the latissimus dorsi and gluteus maximus muscles: An in vivo experiment. J. Biomech. 2013, 46, 1003–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forthomme, B.; Heymans, O.; Jacquemin, D.; Klinkenberg, S.; Hoffmann, S.; Grandjean, F.X.; Crielaard, J.M.; Croisier, J.L. Shoulder function after latissimus dorsi transfer in breast reconstruction. Clin. Physiol. Funct. Imaging 2010, 30, 406–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Pompeo, F.S.; LaPorta, R.; Sorotos, M.; Pagnoni, M.; Falesiedi, F.; Longo, B. Latissimus Dorsi Flap for Total Autologous Immediate Breast Reconstruction without Implants. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2014, 134, 871e–879e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giordano, S.; Kääriäinen, M.T.; Alavaikko, J.; Kaistila, T.; Kuokkanen, H. Latissimus Dorsi Free Flap Harvesting May Affect the Shoulder Joint in Long Run. Scand. J. Surg. 2011, 100, 202–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koh, C.E.; Morrison, W.A. Functional impairment after latissimus dorsi flap. ANZ J. Surg. 2009, 79, 42–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, K.-T.; Mun, G.-H. A Systematic Review of Functional Donor-Site Morbidity after Latissimus Dorsi Muscle Transfer. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2014, 134, 303–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Min, S.Y.; Kim, H.Y.; Jung, S.-Y.; Kwon, Y.; Shin, K.H.; Lee, S.; Kim, S.W.; Kang, H.-S.; Yun, Y.H.; Lee, E.S. Oncological Safety and Quality of Life Associated with Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction with a Latissimus Dorsi Myocutaneous Flap. Breast J. 2010, 16, 356–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borstad, J.D.; Briggs, M.S. Reproducibility of a measurement for latissimus dorsi muscle length. Physiother. Theory Pr. 2010, 26, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plath, J.; Seiberl, W.; Beitzel, K.; Minzlaff, P.; Schwirtz, A.; Imhoff, A.B.; Buchmann, S. Electromyographic activity after latissimus dorsi transfer: testing of coactivation as a simple tool to assess latissimus dorsi motor learning. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2014, 23, 1162–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Comerford, M.; Mottram, S. Kinetic Control. In The Management of Uncontrolled Movement; Elsevier: Chatswood, Australia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Arora, N.K.; Gustafson, D.H.; Hawkins, R.P.; McTavish, F.; Cella, D.F.; Pingree, S.; Mendenhall, J.H.; Mahvi, D.M. Impact of surgery and chemotherapy on the quality of life of younger women with breast carcinoma: a prospective study. Cancer 2001, 92, 1288–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ueda, S.; Tamaki, Y.; Yano, K.; Okishiro, N.; Yanagisawa, T.; Imasato, M.; Shimazu, K.; Kim, S.J.; Miyoshi, Y.; Tanji, Y.; et al. Cosmetic outcome and patient satisfaction after skin-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer with immediate reconstruction of the breast. Surgery 2008, 143, 414–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowicki, A.; Nikiel, M. Breast reconstructive operations, evaluation of patients’ satisfaction. Współczesna Onkol. 2006, 10, 45–50. [Google Scholar]
- Atabek, U.; Barot, L.; Matthews, M.; Brown, A.S.; Spence, R.K.; Mossberg, L.; Camishion, R.C. Immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy. N. J. Med. J. Med Soc. N. J. 1993, 90, 379–382. [Google Scholar]
- Barbosa, J.d.N.; Amorim, M.H.C.; Zandonade, E.; Delaprane, M.L. Evaluation of body posture in women after breast cancer. Rev. Bras. Ginecol. Obstet. 2013, 35, 215–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicoletti, G.; Mandrini, S.; Finotti, V.; Dall’Angelo, A.; Malovini, A.; Chierico, S.; Faga, A.; Toffola, E.D. Objective Clinical Assessment of Posture Patterns after Implant Breast Augmentation. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2015, 136, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hojan, K.; Wruk, B. The impact of treatment in breast cancer on back pain. Onkol. Pol. 2010, 4, 177–184. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, J.D.; Huh, J.S.; Min, Y.-S.; Kim, H.J.; Park, H.Y.; Jung, T.-D. Physical and Functional Ability Recovery Patterns and Quality of Life after Immediate Autologous Latissimus Dorsi Breast Reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2015, 136, 1146–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Garusi, C.; Manconi, A.; Lanni, G.; Lomeo, G.; Loschi, P.; Simoncini, M.; Santoro, L.; Rietjens, M.; Petit, J.Y. Shoulder function after breast reconstruction with the latissimus dorsi flap: A prospective cohort study – Combining DASH score and objective evaluation. Breast 2016, 27, 78–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Huizum, M.A.; Hoornweg, M.J.; De Ruiter, N.; Oudenhoven, E.; Hage, J.J.; Veeger, D.H.E.J. Effect of latissimus dorsi flap breast reconstruction on the strength profile of the upper extremity. J. Plast. Surg. Hand Surg. 2016, 50, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blackburn, N.; Mc Veigh, J.; Mc Caughan, E.; Wilson, I.M. The musculoskeletal consequences of breast reconstruction using the latissimus dorsi muscle for women following mastectomy for breast cancer: A critical review. Eur. J. Cancer Care 2017, 27, e12664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myung, Y.; Choi, B.; Kwon, H.; Heo, C.Y.; Kim, E.-K.; Kang, E.; Jeong, J.H.; Yang, E.J. Quantitative analysis of shoulder function and strength after breast reconstruction. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018, 97, e10979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glassey, N.; Perks, G.B.; McCulley, S.J. A Prospective Assessment of Shoulder Morbidity and Recovery Time Scales following Latissimus Dorsi Breast Reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2008, 122, 1334–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mojallal, A.; Nagarkar, P.; Schaverien, M.; Dauwe, P.; Wong, C.; Rohrich, R.J. The Pedicled Descending Branch Muscle-Sparing Latissimus Dorsi Flap for Breast Reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2009, 123, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eyjolfsdottir, H.; Haraldsdottir, B.; Ragnarsdottir, M.; Asgeirsson, K.S. A Prospective Analysis on Functional Outcomes Following Extended Latissimus Dorsi Flap Breast Reconstruction. Scand. J. Surg. 2016, 106, 152–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ludewig, P.M.; Cook, T.M. Alterations in Shoulder Kinematics and Associated Muscle Activity in People With Symptoms of Shoulder Impingement. Phys. Ther. 2000, 80, 276–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schmitt, L.; Snyder-Mackler, L. Role of Scapular Stabilizers in Etiology and Treatment of Impingement Syndrome. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 1999, 29, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Group | The Average DASH Questionnaire Result | Level of Significance (p) |
---|---|---|
Group A | 60.7 points (from between 30 to 98 points) | p = 0.0014 |
Group B | 32.6 points (from between 30 to only 42 points) |
Group | The Ratio of the Distance Between the Scapular Lower Angle and the Spine Line | Level of Significance (p) | The Ratio of the Distance Between the Scapular Upper Angle and the Spine Line | Level of Significance (p) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Group A | average value of asymmetry was 1.2 cm (from 0.5 to 2.5 cm) | p = 0.0010 | average value of asymmetry was 1.0 cm | p = 0.0134 |
Group B | average value of asymmetry was 0.45 cm (from 0.3 to 1.2 cm) | average value of asymmetry was 0.45 cm |
Direct of Movement | Group A the Average Range of Motion (ROM) Operated Side | Group A the Average Range of Motion (ROM) Non-Operated Side | Group A the Average Value of the Case Asymmetry | Group B the Average Range of Motion (ROM) for Both Limbs | Group B the Average Value of the Case Asymmetry | Level of Significance (p) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Flexion | 148.3° (from between 120° to 175°) | 164° (from between 153° to 175°) | 15.7° (from between 4° to 33°) | 166.4° (from between 150° to 174°) | 3.8° (from between 1° to 7°) | p = 0.0022 |
Abduction | 136.8° (from between 80° to 178°) | 172.1° (from 160° to 180°) | 35.3° (from 2° to 91°) | 168.1° (from between 155° to 178°) | 4.0° (from between 1° to 14°) | p = 0.0022 |
Extension | 15.9° (from between 7° to 28°) | 9.2° (from between 10° to 33°) | 3.3° (from between 4° to 8°) | 21.3° (from between 17° to 28° | 1.8° (from between 1° to 5°) | p = 0.0062 |
External rotation | 38° (from between 5° to 75°) | 52.1° (from 20° to75°) | 14.1° (from between 1° to 29°) | 51.75° (from between 25° to 61°) | 3.9° (from between 2° to 11°) | p = 0.0014 |
Group A the Average Range of Motion (ROM) Operated Side | Group A the Average Range of Motion (ROM) Non-Operated Side | Group A the Average Value of the Case Asymmetry | Group B the Average Range of Motion (ROM) for Both Limbs | Group B the Average Value of the Case Asymmetry | Level of Significance (p) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
146.7° (from between 103° to 168°) | 158.27° (from between 136° to 173°) | 13.17° (from between 1° to 33°) | 164.67° (from between 145° to 174°) | 4.0° (from between 1° to 10°) | p = 0.0091 |
Direct of Movement | Group A the Average Value of the Angle at Which Scapular Control Loss Operated Side | Group A the Average Value of the Angle at Which Scapular Control Loss Non-Operated Side | Group A the Average Value of the Case Asymmetry | Group B the Average Value of the Angle at Which Scapular Control Loss Both Limbs | Group B the Average Value of the Case Asymmetry | Level of Significance (p) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Flexion | 65.5° (from between 20° to 160°) | 108.9° (from between 30° to 175°) | 43.4° (from between 10° to 99°) | 131.8° (from between 50° to as much as 173°) | 16.6° (from between 3° to as much as 115°) | p = 0.0036 |
Abduction | 75.8° (from between 20° to 155°) | 151.5° (from between 70° to 180°) | 75.7° (from between 20° to 139°) | 138.75° (from between 50° to 178°) | 5.5° (from between 1° to 14°) | p = 0.0001 |
External rotation | 28.6° (from 0° to 50°) | 50.2° (from between 0° to as much as 75°) | 21.6° (from between 1° to 57°) | 44.45° (from between 10° to 60°) | 2.7° (from between 2° to 20°) | p = 0.0006 |
Extension | 12.2° (from between 0° to 20°) | 17.2° (from between 10° to 23°) | 5° (from between 4° to 10°) | 19.2° (from between 5° to 27°) | 1.4° (from between 1° to 5°) | p = 0.0057 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hansdorfer-Korzon, R.; Wnuk, D.; Ławnicki, J.; Śliwiński, M.; Gruszecka, A. Regarding the Necessity of Functional Assessment Including Motor Control Assessment of Post-Mastectomy Patients Qualified for Latissimus Dorsi Breast Reconstruction Procedure—Pilot Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2845. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082845
Hansdorfer-Korzon R, Wnuk D, Ławnicki J, Śliwiński M, Gruszecka A. Regarding the Necessity of Functional Assessment Including Motor Control Assessment of Post-Mastectomy Patients Qualified for Latissimus Dorsi Breast Reconstruction Procedure—Pilot Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(8):2845. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082845
Chicago/Turabian StyleHansdorfer-Korzon, Rita, Damian Wnuk, Jakub Ławnicki, Maciej Śliwiński, and Agnieszka Gruszecka. 2020. "Regarding the Necessity of Functional Assessment Including Motor Control Assessment of Post-Mastectomy Patients Qualified for Latissimus Dorsi Breast Reconstruction Procedure—Pilot Study" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 8: 2845. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082845