Quasi-experimental study shows that IPC reduces edema more effectively than physiotherapy alone in post-stroke patients, suggesting potential benefits for recovery.
Introduction Limb edema is a common complication in postoperative stroke patients, often caused by immobility and impaired lymphatic drainage. This swelling can negatively affect recovery. Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) devices, which enhance circulation by applying sequential pressure to the limbs, have shown promise in improving venous return and reducing edema in other patient groups. However, their effectiveness in managing limb edema in immediate postoperative stroke patients remains unclear. This study aims to assess the impact of IPC devices on reducing edema in this patient population. Method This quasi-experimental pre-post comparative study was conducted in the Neuro Intensive Care Unit of Krishna Vishwa Vidyapeeth, Karad. 30 immediate postoperative stroke patients with lower limb edema were included in the study and divided into two groups. Group A received IPC therapy along with conventional physiotherapy, while Group B received conventional physiotherapy alone. Both groups underwent treatment sessions for a duration of two weeks. Outcome measures were assessed pre and post intervention using limb girth measurements and the pitting edema scale. Statistical analysis was performed using paired and unpaired t-tests. Result Both groups demonstrated improvement following intervention; however, Group A showed significantly greater reduction in limb edema compared to Group B. Between-group analysis of the edema scale demonstrated statistically significant improvement in Group A (p = 0.0003). Limb girth measurements also showed significantly greater reduction in Group A compared to Group B (p = 0.0344). Conclusion IPC appears to be an effective adjunctive non-invasive intervention for managing post-operative lower limb edema in stroke patients, potentially supporting edema reduction and early recovery. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the small sample size and short intervention duration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kavitake et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: