Cargando…

Reproducibility and day time bias correction of optoelectronic leg volumetry: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Leg edema is a common manifestation of various underlying pathologies. Reliable measurement tools are required to quantify edema and monitor therapeutic interventions. Aim of the present work was to investigate the reproducibility of optoelectronic leg volumetry over 3 weeks' time p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Engelberger, Rolf P, Blazek, Claudia, Amsler, Felix, Keo, Hong H, Baumann, Frédéric, Blättler, Werner, Baumgartner, Iris, Willenberg, Torsten
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198754/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21974893
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-138
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Leg edema is a common manifestation of various underlying pathologies. Reliable measurement tools are required to quantify edema and monitor therapeutic interventions. Aim of the present work was to investigate the reproducibility of optoelectronic leg volumetry over 3 weeks' time period and to eliminate daytime related within-individual variability. METHODS: Optoelectronic leg volumetry was performed in 63 hairdressers (mean age 45 ± 16 years, 85.7% female) in standing position twice within a minute for each leg and repeated after 3 weeks. Both lower leg (leg(BD)) and whole limb (limb(BF)) volumetry were analysed. Reproducibility was expressed as analytical and within-individual coefficients of variance (CV(A), CV(W)), and as intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: A total of 492 leg volume measurements were analysed. Both leg(BD )and limb(BF )volumetry were highly reproducible with CV(A )of 0.5% and 0.7%, respectively. Within-individual reproducibility of leg(BD )and limb(BF )volumetry over a three weeks' period was high (CV(W )1.3% for both; ICC 0.99 for both). At both visits, the second measurement revealed a significantly higher volume compared to the first measurement with a mean increase of 7.3 ml ± 14.1 (0.33% ± 0.58%) for leg(BD )and 30.1 ml ± 48.5 ml (0.52% ± 0.79%) for limb(BF )volume. A significant linear correlation between absolute and relative leg volume differences and the difference of exact day time of measurement between the two study visits was found (P < .001). A therefore determined time-correction formula permitted further improvement of CV(W). CONCLUSIONS: Leg volume changes can be reliably assessed by optoelectronic leg volumetry at a single time point and over a 3 weeks' time period. However, volumetry results are biased by orthostatic and daytime-related volume changes. The bias for day-time related volume changes can be minimized by a time-correction formula.