1. Jungi WF: The prevention and management of lymphoedema after treatment for breast cancer. Int Rehabil Med 3: 129–134, 1981Google Scholar
2. Brennan MJ, Weitz J: Lymphedema 30 years after radical mastectomy. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 71: 12–14, 1992Google Scholar
3. Petrek JA, Lerner R: Lymphedema. In: Harris JR, Lippman ME, Morrow M, Helman S, (eds) Diseases of the Breast. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, 1996, pp 896-900Google Scholar
4. Erickson VS, Pearson ML, Ganz PA, Adams J, Kahn KL: Arm edema in breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 93: 96–111, 2001Google Scholar
5. Brennan MJ: Lymphedema following the surgical treatment of breast cancer: a review of pathophysiology and treatment. J Pain Sympt Manage 7: 110–116, 1992Google Scholar
6. Casley-Smith JR: Alterations of untreated lymphedema and it's grades over time. Lymphology 28: 174–185, 1995Google Scholar
7. Petrek JA, Heelan MC: Incidence of breast carcinoma-related lymphedema. Cancer 83: 2776–2781, 1998Google Scholar
8. Simon MS, Cody RL: Cellulitis after axillary lymph node dissection for carcinoma of the breast. Am J Med 93: 543–548, 1992Google Scholar
9. Passik SD, McDonald MV: Psychosocial aspects of upper extremity lymphedema in women treated for breast carcinoma. Cancer 83: 2817–2820, 1998Google Scholar
10. Brennan MJ, DePompolo RW, Garden FH: Focused review: postmastectomy lymphedema. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 77: S74–80, 1996Google Scholar
11. Mirolo BR, Bunce IH, Chapman M, Olsen T, Eliadis P, Hennessy JM, Ward LC, Jones LC: Psychosocial benefits of postmastectomy lymphedema therapy. Cancer Nurs 18: 197–205, 1995Google Scholar
12. Tobin MB, Lacey HJ, Meyer L, Mortimer PS: The psychological morbidity of breast cancer-related arm swelling. Cancer 72: 3248–3252, 1993Google Scholar
13. Velanovich V, Szymanski W: Quality of life of breast cancer patients with lymphedema. Am J Surg 177: 184–187; 1999Google Scholar
14. Voogd AC, Ververs JM, Vingerhoets AJ, Roumen RM, Coebergh JW, Crommelin MA: Lymphoedema and reduced shoulder function as indicators of quality of life after axillary lymph node dissection for invasive breast cancer. Br J Surg 90: 76–81, 2003Google Scholar
15. Brennan MJ, Miller LT: Overview of treatment options and review of the current role and use of compression garments, intermittent pumps, and exercise in the management of lymphedema. Cancer 83: 2821–2827, 1998Google Scholar
16. Rockson SG, Miller LT, Senie R, Brennan MJ, Casley-Smith JR, Foldi E, Foldi M, Gamble GL, Kasseroller RG, Leduc A, Lerner R, Mortimer PS, Norman SA, Plotkin CL, Rinehart-Ayres ME, Walder AL: American Cancer Society Lymphedema Workshop. Workgroup III: Diagnosis and management of lymphedema. Cancer 83: 2882–2885, 1998Google Scholar
17. Casley-Smith JR, Boris M, Weindorf S, Lasinski B: Treatment for lymphedema of the arm-the Casley-Smith method. Cancer 83: 2843–2860, 1998Google Scholar
18. Harris SR, Hugi MR, Olivotto IA, Levine M: Clinical practice guidelines for the care and treatment of breast cancer: 11. Lymphedema. Can Med Assoc J 164: 191–199, 2001Google Scholar
19. Megens A, Harris SR: Physical therapist management of lymphedema following treatment for breast cancer: a critical review of its effectiveness. Phys Ther 78: 1302–1311, 1998Google Scholar
20. Karki A, Simonen R, Malkia E, Selfe J: Efficacy of physical therapy methods and exercise after a breast cancer option: a systematic review. Crit Rev Phys Rehabil Med 13: 159–190, 2001Google Scholar
21. Casley-Smith JR: Modern treatment of lymphoedema. I. Complex physical therapy: the first 200 Australian limbs. Australas J Dermatol 33: 61–68, 1992Google Scholar
22. Ko DS, Lerner R, Klose G, Cosimi AB: Effective treatment of lymphedema of the extremities. Arch Surg 133: 452–458, 1998Google Scholar
23. Foldi E, Foldi M, Clodius L: The lymphedema chaos: a lancet. Ann Plast Surg 22: 505–515, 1989Google Scholar
24. Boris M, Weindorf S, Lasinski B, Boris G: Lymphedema reduction by noninvasive complex lymphedema therapy. Oncology (Huntington) 8: 95–106, 1994Google Scholar
25. Morgan RG, Casley-Smith JR, Mason MR: Complex physical therapy for the lymphoedematous arm. J Hand Surg-British Volume 17: 437–441, 1992Google Scholar
26. Godal R, Swedborg I: A correction for the natural asymmetry of the arms in the determination of the volume of oedema. Scand J Rehabil Med 14: 193–195, 1982Google Scholar
27. Kasseroller RG: The Vodder School: the Vodder method. Cancer 83: 2840–2842, 1998Google Scholar
28. Tracey GD, Reeve TS, Fitzsimons E, Rundle FF: Observations on the swollen arm after radical mastectomy. Aust N Z J Surg 30: 204, 1961Google Scholar
29. Engler HS, Sweat RD: Volumetric arm measurements: technique and results. Am Surg 28: 465–468, 1962Google Scholar
30. Karges JR: Assessing the relationship between water displacement and circumferential measurements in determining upper extremity volume in women with lymphedema. Krannert School of Physical Therapy, University of Indianapolis, Indianapolis, USA, 1996Google Scholar
31. Portney LG, Watkins MP: Foundations of Clinical Research Applications to Clinical Practice. Appleton and Lange, East Norwalk, Connecticut, 1993Google Scholar
32. Warren S: Statistical Analysis. In: Bartlett D (ed) Research Theory in Rehabilitation. Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, 1994.Google Scholar
33. Stillwell GK: Treatment of postmastectomy lymphedema. Mod Treat 6: 396–412, 1969Google Scholar
34. Andersen L, Hojris I, Erlandsen M, Andersen J: Treatment of breast-cancer-related lymphedema with or without manual lymphatic drainage-a randomized study. Acta Oncol 39: 399–405, 2000Google Scholar
35. Johansson K, Albertsson M, Ingvar C, Ekdahl C: Effects of compression bandaging with or without manual lymph drainage treatment in patients with postoperative arm lymphedema. Lymphology 32: 103–10, 1999Google Scholar
36. Badger CM, Peacock JL, Mortimer PS: A randomized, controlled, parallel-group clinical trial comparing multilayer bandaging followed by hosiery versus hosiery alone in the treatment of patients with lymphedema of the limb. Cancer 88: 2832–2837, 2000Google Scholar
37. Klose G: Lymphedema Bandaging. Lohmann & Rauscher, Germany, 1998, pp 14-23Google Scholar
38. Ramos SM, O'Donnell LS, Knight G: Edema volume, not timing, is the key to success in lymphedema treatment. Am J Surg 178: 311–315, 1999Google Scholar
39. Leduc O, Leduc A, Bourgeois P, Belgrado JP: The physical treatment of upper limb edema. Cancer 83: 2835–2839, 1998Google Scholar

1. Korg Pa 900 Manual
2. Monacor Pa 900 Manual Lymphatic Drainage Systems
3. Manual Lymphatic Drainage Vodder
4. Manual Lymphatic Drainage Chart
5. Monacor Pa 900 Manual Lymphatic Drainage Near Me

Manual lymph drainage is a gentle but firm massage which helps to move lymph on to a functional area and can have a calming effect on the nervous system. We also provide information on the importance of diet and exercise, instruction on self- Lymphatic drainage, information on bandaging and compression garments.

PA 2Assistant Professor of Kinesiology, Department of Kinesiology, Athletic Training Research Laboratory, College of Health and Human. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF EFFICACY FOR MANUAL LYMPHATIC DRAINAGE TECHNIQUES IN SPORTS MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION FIGURE 2. QUORUM statement flow diagram illustrating the results of our literature search strategy. The elements of CDT are: diagnosis, manual lymphatic drainage (MLD), multilayered compression bandaging, compression garments, therapeutic exercises, and self-care. Adjuncts to CDT often include use of pneumatic pumps that substitute for MLD, Kinesio tape applied to the skin so it channels lymph to reduce swelling, and aquatic therapy. The LMT Success Group has put together a succinct and affordable two-day continuing education program that will give you the knowledge and ability to immediately incorporate manual lymphatic drainage into your practice. This class is geared specifically to the massage professional and deals strictly with manual lymphatic drainage. In addition to therapeutic massage, the LiVe Well Center offers manual lymphatic drainage, seated chair, oncology, sports and athletic, and prenatal massage. Prenatal Massage. Relieve the aches and pains associated with pregnancy through prenatal massage therapy at the LiVe Well Center in Park City.

Abstract

Manual therapists question integrating manual lymphatic drainage techniques (MLDTs) into conventional treatments for athletic injuries due to the scarcity of literature concerning musculoskeletal applications and established orthopaedic clinical practice guidelines. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide manual therapy clinicians with pertinent information regarding progression of MLDTs as well as to critique the evidence for efficacy of this method in sports medicine. We surveyed English-language publications from 1998 to 2008 by searching PubMed, PEDro, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and SPORTDiscus databases using the terms lymphatic system, lymph drainage, lymphatic therapy, manual lymph drainage, and lymphatic pump techniques. We selected articles investigating the effects of MLDTs on orthopaedic and athletic injury outcomes. Nine articles met inclusion criteria, of which 3 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We evaluated the 3 RCTs using a validity score (PEDro scale). Due to differences in experimental design, data could not be collapsed for meta-analysis. Animal model experiments reinforce theoretical principles for application of MLDTs. When combined with concomitant musculoskeletal therapy, pilot and case studies demonstrate MLDT effectiveness. The best evidence suggests that efficacy of MLDT in sports medicine and rehabilitation is specific to resolution of enzyme serum levels associated with acute skeletal muscle cell damage as well as reduction of edema following acute ankle joint sprain and radial wrist fracture. Currently, there is limited high-ranking evidence available. Well-designed RCTs assessing outcome variables following implementation of MLDTs in treating athletic injuries may provide conclusive evidence for establishing applicable clinical practice guidelines in sports medicine and rehabilitation.

Manual lymphatic drainage techniques (MLDTs) are unique manual therapy interventions that may be incorporated by medical practitioners as well as allied health clinicians into rehabilitation paradigms for the treatment of somatic dysfunctions and pathologies^–5. The theoretical bases for using such modes of manual therapy are founded on the following concepts: 1) stimulating the lymphatic system via an increase in lymph circulation, 2) expediting the removal of biochemical wastes from body tissues, 3) enhancing body fluid dynamics, thereby facilitating edema reduction, and 4) decreasing sympathetic nervous system responses while increasing parasympathetic nervous tone yielding a non-stressed body-framework state⁵. The physiological and biomechanical effects of MLDTs on lymphatic system dynamics in treating ill or injured patients have long been of interest to osteopathic, allied health, complementary, and alternative medicine practitioners^5, although it was not until the 19^th century that researchers began to theorize concepts regarding direct influences of human movement and manual inerventions, predominantely massage, on the lymphatic system. Subsequent clinical scientists focused their efforts on advancing investigations on the biodynamic properties of the lymphatic system from which treatment interventions were developed for therapeutic purposes^,.

Andrew Taylor Still, DO, proposed the initial principles of MLDTs with the advent of osteopathic manipulative techniques in the late 1800s. Still's appreciation for the complexities of lymphatic system functionality influenced many of the ensuing pracitioners who evolved this body of work. Elmer D Barber, DO, a student at Still's American School of Osteopathy, was the first author to publish works on manual lymphatic pump techniques for the spleen, in 1898. Another pupil of Still's philosophies, Earl Miller, DO, instituted the manual thoracic pump technique in 1920. Emil Vodder, PhD, was an additional clinical scientist who contributed to the development and advancement of MLDTs^,. Vodder focused his clinical research on gaining further insight into the treatment of various pathologies by manipulating the lymphatic system^,. In his work with individuals afflicted by various health ailments, Vodder reported successful treatment results using his manual lymph drainage technique throughout the 1930s^,. Vodder's treatment approach was similar to popular modes of Scandinavian massage therapies for that time period but it differed in that heavy pressure was discouraged and a light touch was substituted^,5,. This has led to the advent of the current Vodder Method, which is used by various healthcare professionals in treating several edematous conditions^,. Numerous other medical and allied health professionals, such as Bruno Chikly, MD, DO, have contributed to progressing the art and science of MLDTs, most notably with managing post-lymphadenectomy lymphoedema.

In contrast, the currently proposed criteria for successful management of most acute or chronic edematous conditions in allopathic-based orthopaedic sports medicine and rehabilitation have traditionally implemented cryotherapy, elevation, compressive dressings, suitable range-of-motion exercises, and applicable therapeutic modalities^,8. This commonly prescribed standard of care for injury to musculoskeletal tissues is often supplemented with bouts of oral anti-inflammatory analgesic medications^,8. These medications typically constitute non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs^,5,8, which have been the subject of increasing scrutiny and caution with the recent discovery of occasionally fatal side-effects.

Evidence-based practice is a common agenda in medical and allied health sciences, which serves to optimize rendering of health care services through the investigation of treatment interventions that yield positive patient outcomes for establishing clinical practice guidelines^9,10. Use of MLDTs to improve functionality and maintain homeostasis of the lymphatic system is a topic that warrants critical appraisal for determining efficacy in sports medicine and rehabilitation. Hence, it is the purpose of this systematic review to present manual therapy clinicians with a synopsis of the history, theory, and application of MLDTs as well as to discuss current evidence that scrutinizes its efficacy in sports medicine.

Korg Pa 900 Manual

Methods

The elements of our clinical question were refined in a stepwise process employing the Participant, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) model (McMaster University, UK) (Figure ​(Figure1).1). Manual lymph drainage is defined by MedlinePlus (United States National Library of Medicine) as “a light massage therapy technique that involves moving the skin in particular directions based on the structure of the lymphatic system. This helps encourage drainage of the fluid and waste through the appropriate channels.” This broad definition was used when surveying the relevant literature for our systematic review. Manual lymph drainage techniques reviewed included the Vodder Method and various lymphatic pumps, which demonstrate anatomical and physiological rationale supported by empirical evidence. Specialized concepts such as reflexology, craniosacral technique, and manual lymphatic mapping were not included due to the scarcity of reliable and valid evidence supporting these interventions.

Description for components of the PICO model.

Search Strategy

A comprehensive survey of recent scientific articles in suitable peer-reviewed journals published between 1998 and 2008 was conducted. A series of literature searches used PubMed, PEDro, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and SPORTDiscus electronic databases. The keywords consistently used were lymphatic system, lymph drainage, lymphatic therapy, manual lymph drainage, and lymphatic pump techniques. We screened the titles of all retrieved hits and identified potentially relevant articles by analyzing associated abstracts. Entire articles were obtained if we deemed the research study satisfied inclusion criteria. Additional publications were identified through manual searches of cited references for related articles retrieved.

Inclusion Criteria

Inclusion criteria consisted of scientific publications that were complete articles with sufficient detail to extract the focal attributes of the research studies. Articles were eligible for inclusion in the critical appraisal if they were categorized as systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), or cohort studies. Due to limited applicable original research studies, pragmatic pilot and case studies pertinent to musculoskeletal health as well as innovative animal-model experiments were also included. Patients enrolled in the research studies had to have suffered from medically diagnosed musculoskeletal ailments, which included bone fracture, acute ankle sprain, fibromyalgia, orthopaedic trauma, and Bell's palsy. Healthy humans participating in research studies that experimentally induced acute skeletal muscle damage following standardized exercise were also included. Furthermore, all research studies included in this systematic review used reliable measurement tools employed in the biomedical, health, and rehabilitation sciences.

Exclusion Criteria

Articles published in languages other than English or prior to 1998 were excluded. Research studies investigating therapies such as reflexology, craniosacral technique, and manual lymphatic mapping were also omitted. With the focus of this systematic review specific to treating orthopaedic and athletic injuries, investigations directed towards management of other somatic dysfunctions or pathologies, such as cancer and lymphoedema, were eliminated.

Data Extraction and Critical Appraisal

The following data were extracted from selected publications to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of MLDTs in sports medicine and rehabilitation as well as to analyze treatment protocols employed in retrieved research studies: experimental design; sampled population size; patients/participants treated; control group; mode of MLDT; MLDT regimen; clinician administering treatment; concomitant interventions; outcome measures. Methodological quality of all scientific articles was critically appraised in this review as delineated per the levels of evidence (May 2001) categorized by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) (Oxford, UK)^9,10. Where applicable, selected RCT articles were further scrutinized with a validity score (PEDro scale).

Results

More than 100 titles were identified with the primary search in defined databases. However, the majority of the publications analyzed did not investigate the effects of MLDTs on musculoskeletal conditions in laboratory settings or clinical trials. Only nine articles were screened as potentially relevant for retrieval to a more detailed evaluation following analysis of associated abstracts (Figure ​(Figure22).

QUORUM statement flow diagram illustrating the results of our literature search strategy.

Diverse modes of MLDTs and outcome measurement tools were noted in the research studies. Three relevant human-subject research studies were selected for critical appraisal. One research study was classified as a RCT; it experimentally induced acute skeletal muscle damage after a standardized exercise protocol. The control group in this experiment received no treatment. Another RCT evaluated MLDT intervention following radial wrist fracture. In this instance, the MLDT group's contralateral extremity served as an internal non-treatment control and differences in bilateral limb volume were compared against a group who received the standard of care for a similar injury. A prospective randomized controlled nonconsecutive clinical trial was also identified assessing acute ankle sprains. In this research study, comparisons were made to a control group of participants who had sustained a similar injury and received the standard of care.

The RCTs^,, obtained a score of 6 or higher as scrutinized by the PEDro scale. All of the research studies lost two points as the result of not blinding the participants receiving and the therapists administering the MLDT treatments. However, it is inherent in manual therapy investigations that blinding is compromised because the patient perceives the intervention during treatment. Likewise, it is difficult for a manual therapist to administer a sham or placebo intervention without being cognizant of such during treatment. The validity scoring of the RCTs per the PEDro scare are listed in Table ​Table11.

TABLE 1

A pilot study evaluating the effect of MLDTs on fibromyalgia was also included¹³. Furthermore, two multimodal case studies were chosen pertaining to traumatic musculoskeletal injury and neuromuscular pathology. Three patient animal-model experiments^– were also included as they represented innovative basic science investigations in the theoretical domain of proposed MLDT biomechanisms. The characteristics of the retrieved articles are listed in Table ​Table2.2. A summary of the selected literature reviewed is presented in Table ​Table33.

TABLE 2

TABLE 3

Discussion

Foundations for Theory and Application to Evidence-Based Practice

Modern anatomists, physiologists, and medical practitioners consider the lymphatic system the crux of regulating homeostasis in the human organism^,,5,. Appropriate lymph dynamics are fundamental to an adequate immune system as well as facilitating cellular processes and by-product elimination^,,. However, congestion of the lymphatic system may arise as the result of various intrinsic and extrinsic factors, which include restricted hemodynamics due to focal ischemia, systemic illnesses, tissue injuries, overexposure to adverse chemicals, food allergies or sensitivities, lack of physical movement or exercise, stress, and tight-fitting clothing⁵. In order to address stagnant lymph or impaired lymph dynamics, administration of MLDTs to the limbs has been proposed to aid transport of lymph from the extremities^,5–. Furthermore, complementary lymphatic pump techniques are thought to augment lymph passage through larger, more extensive lymphatic channels in the thorax for the filtration and removal of pathological fluids, inflammatory mediators, and waste products from the interstitial space^,5,. The majority of MLDTs are considered safe but contraindications typically include major cardiac pathology, thrombosis or venous obstruction, hemorrhage, acute enuresis, and malignant tumors^,5,. Several modes of MLDTs, such as the Vodder Method and lymphatic pump techniques, are commonly practiced in osteopathic, complementary, and alternative medicine as well as physical rehabilitation for treating the lymphatic system. With applications specific to orthopaedic injury, MLDTs are proposed to stimulate the superficial component of the lymphatic system for aiding resolution of post-traumatic edema⁵. To an extent, the clinical effectiveness of such interventions has been suggested via pragmatic studies using MLDTs in physical rehabilitation interventions for musculoskeletal traumatic injuries and chronic conditions¹³ as well as neuromuscular pathology or dysfunction. Unfortunately, few basic, applied, or clinical research studies have been conducted that conclusively validate the proposed biophysical processes of MLDTs in humans⁵.

Conversely, several unique research studies have demonstrated evidence in animal models supporting the proposed biomechanisms underpinning MLDTs. Déry et al displayed increased measures of lymph uptake in a rat model subsequent to the application of a lymphatic pump technique. Furthermore, innovative studies by Knott et al and Hodge et al measured greater thoracic duct flow as well as leukocyte count respectively in a canine model with abdominal and thoracic lymphatic pump techniques. The laboratory techniques of Knott et al and Hodge et al specifically represent landmark contributions to this body of work by obtaining real-time indices for lymph mobilization with the implementation of MLDTs commonly applied in clinical osteopathic medical practice. Though the findings of Déry et al, Knott et al, and Hodge et al have supported proposed keystone theoretical concepts and suggested the potential efficacy of MLDTs in animal models, extrapolation of these findings to applicability in the human species is currently inconclusive.

Efficacy in Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation

Unfortunately, the literature regarding the influence of MLDTs for specific conditions encountered in conventional athletic injury rehabilitation is limited. To date, the most pertinent current research studies on the efficacy of MLDTs in sports medicine and rehabilitation are the work of Schillinger et al, Eisenhart et al, and Härén et al. Several pilot¹³ and case studies^, have been published that suggest clinical effectiveness of MLDTs for several musculoskeletal conditions but they have failed to bolster the CEBM level of evidence and grade of recommendation supporting efficacy of such interventions in sports medicine and rehabilitation.

Schillinger et al conducted a randomized controlled trial that analyzed biochemical indices of structural skeletal muscle cell integrity upon the implementation of MLDTs following a bout of endurance treadmill running to anaerobic threshold. Compared to control participants who received no manual therapy interventions, the MLDT group displayed a statistically significant decrease in concentrations of blood lactate dehydrogenase and aspartate aminotransferase immediately following a treatment session and at a 48-hour follow-up. The observed decrease in serum levels of specific skeletal muscle enzymes following an MLDT intervention demonstrates the potential for expedited regenerative and repair mechanisms to skeletal muscle cell integrity following structural damage as the result of taxing loads associated with physical activity. Eisenhart et al investigated the effects of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) on acute ankle sprains managed in an emergency department. Participants randomly assigned to the OMT group received lymphatic drainage techniques in conjunction with the current standard of care compared to a control group prescribed only the standard of care. Results of one OMT session produced statistically significant decreases in pain and edema. At the follow-up evaluation one week post-intervention, the OMT group displayed improvement in outcome measures for range of motion compared to the control group. Though the results of Eisenhart et al demonstrate potential MLDT efficacy for this orthopaedic injury commonly treated by physical rehabilitation specialists, the definitive contribution of lymphatic drainage techniques in a multimodal OMT paradigm is difficult to ascertain. However, this research study may serve as a springboard for subsequent investigations on the effect of MLDTs in treating commonly encountered orthopaedic conditions.

Härén et al conducted a prospective cohort research study that evaluated the efficacy of MLDTs following wrist bone fracture and subsequent treatment of the distal radius. In this experimental design, all enrolled patients received the standard of care for this condition with participants then randomized into MLDT and control groups. In addition to the standard of care, the MLDT group received 10 MLDT treatments. Härén et al reported that the MLDT group displayed statistically significantly decreased measures of hand volume suggesting less edema present in the injured extremity. This preliminary evidence supports efficacy of MLDTs in sports medicine and rehabilitation specific to managing wrist bone fractures. However, continued investigations with larger sample sizes are required to confirm and validate the results of the three aforementioned human research studies.

Applicable case and pilot studies have produced results that support the clinical effectiveness of incorporating MLDTs into multimodal treatment interventions for musculoskeletal^,13 and neuromuscular ailments. These positive outcomes include statistically significant decreases in pain¹³ as well as clinically significant reductions in edema, improvements in wound healing, and restorations of anatomical structure and physiological functions^,. These pragmatic reports suggest that MLDTs are effective in a treatment paradigm when used in conjunction with other interventions. Although these results support the potential effectiveness of MLDTs for musculoskeletal conditions in a context that mirrors real-world clinical practice, unfortunately the specific contribution of MLDTs to these positive outcomes remains unknown. This is generally due to the research methods employed, i.e., predominately quasi-experimental designs, which rank low according to CEBM standards for ranking the levels of evidence and validity scores scrutinized by the PEDro scale^9,10. Hence, these pragmatic studies fail to support efficacy, in the strictest terms, of MLDTs in sports medicine and rehabilitation.

The strongest evidence from RCTs suggests that MLDTs may be efficacious in the resolution of enzyme serum levels associated with acute structural skeletal muscle cell damage as well as in the reduction of edema following wrist bone fracture of the distal radius and acute ankle sprain. However, based on CEBM standards for ranking the levels of evidence, there is currently an insufficient and inconsistent ensemble of evidence to support a grade of recommendation on which to establish clinical practice guidelines for the use of MLDTs in rehabilitating athletic injuries.

Manual lymphatic drainage techniques remain a clinical art founded upon hypotheses, theory, and preliminary evidence. Researchers must strive to clarify the biophysical effects that underpin its various proposed therapeutic applications in the human organism. Randomized controlled trials and longitudinal prospective cohort studies are required to establish the efficacy of MLDTs in producing positive outcomes for patients rehabilitating from sports-related injuries. Researchers employing such experimental designs should use diligence in selecting specific modes of MLDTs to be incorporated in respective intervention regimens so that diverse forms of the therapy are avoided with investigated treatment protocols. The applied and clinical sciences research studies of Schillinger et al, Eisenhart et al, and Härén et al along with advanced basic science experimental methods implemented by Knott et al and Hodge et al may serve as groundwork references for future hybrid investigations in this domain of manual therapy. Once this facet of a proposed research paradigm has been established, the focus might expand to include determination of optimal treatment durations as well as the most effective rate and frequency of administered MLDTs for the development of a defined intervention algorithm.

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Daniel Monthley, MS, ATC, for his assistance in reviewing and editing drafts of this manuscript.

REFERENCES

Monacor Pa 900 Manual Lymphatic Drainage Systems

Manual Lymphatic Drainage Vodder

Manual Lymphatic Drainage Chart

Monacor Pa 900 Manual Lymphatic Drainage Near Me