Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

LymphaticsLymphatics
PDF
  • Commentary
  • Open Access

25 July 2026

3 Pages

Mobility Matters—Rethinking Compression Therapy in Lymphedema and Phlebolymphedema

Koya Medical, Dallas, TX 75207, USA
Lymphatics2026, 4(3), 39;https://doi.org/10.3390/lymphatics4030039
This article belongs to the Special Issue The Lymphatic System in Clinical Practice: From Diagnosis to Management
Version Notes
Review Reports
Order Reprints

Abstract

Lymphedema and phlebolymphedema are increasingly recognized as prevalent chronic conditions that extend beyond traditional cancer-related populations. Although Complete Decongestive Therapy remains the foundation of management, real-world treatment success is often limited by challenges with long-term adherence, particularly when therapies disrupt patients’ daily activities. This commentary explores the physiologic relationship between mobility and fluid transport, emphasizing the complementary roles of movement and compression in supporting venous and lymphatic return. Emerging evidence from studies of wearable, non-pneumatic compression technologies suggest that allowing patients to remain active during treatment may improve limb-volume reduction, quality of life, and adherence compared with conventional pneumatic systems. These findings challenge longstanding assumptions regarding immobilization and trunk compression while reinforcing the importance of patient-centered treatment strategies. As the burden of chronic edema continues to grow, clinicians should increasingly consider mobility as an active therapeutic component and prioritize interventions that align with both human physiology and the realities of everyday life.
Lymphedema is no longer a rare or niche condition encountered only after cancer treatment. Increasingly, clinicians recognize that chronic edema—particularly in patients with advanced chronic venous insufficiency (CVI)—is often a manifestation of lymphatic dysfunction given the parallel nature of the venous and lymphatic systems. Yet despite the prevalence of lymphedema and phlebolymphedema, many patients continue to experience delayed diagnosis and inconsistent treatment [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9].
For decades, Complete Decongestive Therapy (CDT) has remained the cornerstone of management. Compression, manual lymphatic drainage, exercise, and meticulous skin care continue to represent the standard approach, and appropriately so. However, as clinicians, we must acknowledge an uncomfortable reality: therapies that work under ideal conditions do not always translate into success in everyday life.
Perhaps nowhere is this more apparent than with home compression systems. Traditional pneumatic compression devices have demonstrated efficacy, but they also require patients to interrupt their daily activities and remain immobilized for prolonged periods. In clinical practice, this creates a disconnect between what we prescribe and what patients are realistically willing—or able—to do consistently [10].
This issue raises an important question. Are disappointing outcomes truly the result of inadequate compression, or are they simply the consequence of therapies that patients struggle to incorporate into their lives?
The physiology of lymphatic and venous return suggests that movement itself is therapeutic. Skeletal muscle contraction, diaphragmatic breathing, and changes in posture all contribute to fluid transport. Immobilization removes these natural mechanisms. Consequently, compression therapy delivered in the absence of movement may unintentionally exclude one of the body’s most effective drainage systems [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19].
This concept becomes particularly important in phlebolymphedema, where venous hypertension and lymphatic overload coexist. In these patients, compression and mobility should not be viewed as separate interventions but rather as complementary components of the same physiologic process [6,7,8,9,17,18,19].
Recent comparative studies evaluating mobility-enabled, non-pneumatic compression technologies have provided intriguing insights. In randomized crossover trials involving both upper- and lower-extremity lymphedema, patients treated with wearable non-pneumatic devices experienced greater limb-volume reduction, higher responder rates, improved quality of life, and substantially better adherence compared with patients using advanced pneumatic systems [20,21].
While volume reduction is important, adherence may represent the most clinically meaningful outcome. A treatment that patients consistently use will almost always outperform one that remains in the closet.
Equally noteworthy is the observation that patients treated without trunk garments did not experience worsening truncal edema. For years, many clinicians have assumed that external trunk compression was essential for proximal lymphatic clearance. Emerging evidence suggests that upright posture, diaphragmatic breathing, and normal physiologic movement may accomplish much of this work naturally [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19].
These findings challenge some long-standing assumptions in lymphedema management. They also reinforce a broader principle that extends beyond compression therapy itself: successful treatment should align with human physiology and patient behavior rather than requiring patients to adapt their lives around the treatment.
Several practical lessons emerge from this evolving evidence.
First, patients with advanced chronic venous insufficiency and persistent edema should increasingly be viewed through a lymphatic lens. Treating these individuals as having “venous edema alone” risks overlooking an important component of their disease, as well as the interrelationship of the systems [5,6,7,8,9].
Second, adherence should not automatically be interpreted as a patient problem. Frequently, poor adherence reflects a mismatch between therapy design and daily life.
Third, mobility should be considered an active therapeutic component rather than merely an activity permitted between treatments.
Finally, compression technologies that allow patients to remain upright and active may represent more than an incremental improvement. They may signal a broader shift toward patient-centered therapies that integrate rather than interrupt daily living.
None of this diminishes the importance of Complete Decongestive Therapy. Instead, it highlights the opportunity to deliver its principles in ways that are more sustainable over the long term.
As the burden of lymphedema and phlebolymphedema continues to grow, clinicians must move beyond asking whether a therapy can work and begin asking whether patients can realistically live with it. Ultimately, the most effective treatment is not simply the one supported by physiology—it is the one patients can sustain.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Rockson, S.G. Lymphedema. Am. J. Med. 2001, 110, 288–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  2. Sleigh, B.C.; Manna, B. Lymphedema. In StatPearls [Internet]; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  3. Greene, A.K. Epidemiology and Morbidity of Lymphedema. In Lymphedema: Presentation, Diagnosis, and Treatment; Greene, A.K., Slavin, S.A., Brorson, H., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 33–44. [Google Scholar]
  4. Roberson, M.L.; Strassle, P.D.; Fasehun, L.O.; Erim, D.O.; Deune, E.G.; Ogunleye, A.A. Financial burden of lymphedema hospitalizations in the United States. JAMA Oncol. 2021, 7, 630–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  5. Dean, S.M.; Valenti, E.; Hock, K.; Leffler, J.; Compston, A.; Abraham, W.T. The clinical characteristics of lower extremity lymphedema in 440 patients. J. Vasc. Surg. Venous Lymphat. Disord. 2020, 8, 851–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  6. Farrow, W. Phlebolymphedema—A common underdiagnosed and undertreated problem in the wound care clinic. J. Am. Col. Certif. Wound Spec. 2010, 2, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  7. Lee, B.B. Phlebolymphedema: Neglected outcome of combined venous and lymphatic insufficiency. Vasc. Spec. Int. 2020, 36, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Singh, A.; Zahra, F. Chronic Venous Insufficiency. In StatPearls [Internet]; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  9. Ulloa, J.; Cifuentes, S. Phlebolymphedema: An up-to-date review. Phlebolymphology 2021, 28, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. Brown, J.C.; Cheville, A.L.; Tchou, J.C.; Harris, S.R.; Schmitz, K.H. Prescription and adherence to lymphedema self-care modalities among women with breast cancer-related lymphedema. Support. Care Cancer 2014, 22, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  11. Rockson, S.G.; Karaca-Mandic, P.; Skoracki, R.; Hock, K.; Nguyen, M.; Shadduck, K.; Gingerich, P.; Campione, E.; Leifer, A.; Armer, J. Clinical evaluation of a novel wearable compression technology in the treatment of lymphedema: An open-label controlled study. Lymphat. Res. Biol. 2022, 20, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  12. Rockson, S.G.; Karaca-Mandic, P.; Nguyen, M.; Shadduck, K.; Gingerich, P.; Campione, E.; Hettrick, H. A non-randomized, open-label study of the safety and effectiveness of a novel non-pneumatic compression device for lower limb lymphedema. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 14005, Erratum in Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  13. Rockson, S.G.; Skoracki, R. Effectiveness of a nonpneumatic active compression device in older adults with breast cancer-related lymphedema: A subanalysis of a randomized crossover trial. Lymphat. Res. Biol. 2023, 21, 581–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  14. Rodrick, J.; Barnhart, H.; Rockson, S.G.; Chen, L.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, H.; Li, W.; Xu, J.; Kim, S.; et al. Evaluation of a novel wearable non-pneumatic compression device for the treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema. Biomed. Mater. Devices 2024, 3, 112–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Rao, A.; Berland, T.; Mullick, A.; Maldonado, T.S.; Blumberg, S.N. A novel non-pneumatic compression device results in reduced foot and ankle swelling in patients with venous and lymphatic edema. Vascular 2024, 32, 1015–1022. [Google Scholar]
  16. Wright, T.; Scarfino, C.; Baldwin, J.; Barnhart, H.; Doraiswamy, A.; Chen, M.; Davis, R.; Evans, K.; Thompson, P.; White, J.; et al. Real-time visualization of enhanced lymphatic flow when using a non-pneumatic active compression device. Ann. Case Rep. 2023, 8, 1564. [Google Scholar]
  17. Klose Training. Anatomy and Physiology of the Lymphatic System Manual; Klose Training: Boulder, CO, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  18. Van Helden, D.F. The lymphangion: A not so “primitive” heart. J. Physiol. 2014, 592, 5353–5354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  19. Zawieja, D.C. Contractile physiology of lymphatics. Lymphat. Res. Biol. 2009, 7, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  20. Rockson, S.G.; Whitworth, P.W.; Cooper, A.; Kania, S.; Karnofel, H.; Nguyen, M.; Shadduck, K.; Gingerich, P.; Armer, J. Safety and effectiveness of a novel non-pneumatic active compression device for treating breast cancer-related lymphedema: A multicenter randomized crossover trial (NILE). J. Vasc. Surg. Venous Lymphat. Disord. 2022, 10, 1359–1366.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  21. Barfield, M.; Winokur, R.; Berland, T.; Davis, S.; Ralph, V.; Chatham, N.; Rockson, S.; Maldonado, T.S. Results from a comparative study to evaluate the treatment effectiveness of a nonpneumatic compression device versus an advanced pneumatic compression device for lower extremity lymphedema swelling (TEAYS study). J. Vasc. Surg. Venous Lymphat. Disord. 2025, 13, 101965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Accessible Indirect Lymphography with Iohexol for Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping in a Dog with Auricular Melanoma: A Brief Report
Previous
Cytoreduction-Adapted Outpatient Venetoclax Ramp-Up in CLL/SLL: A Real-World Pilot Study
Next