Your search

ObjectivesThis study aimed to determine the frequency of probable lipedema among women with lower extremity pain (LEP) using a validated screening questionnaire and to examine its associations with neuropathic pain (NP) characteristics, functional status, psychological symptoms, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).MethodsThis prospective questionnaire-based case-control study included 133 women, comprising 68 women with LEP and 65 age-matched healthy controls. Participants were evaluated using the Lipedema Screening Questionnaire (LSQ), Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), PainDETECT questionnaire, and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12). An LSQ score of ≥8 was classified as probable lipedema, whereas a score of ≥12 was classified as high-probability lipedema. These categories indicate screening probability rather than a confirmed clinical diagnosis of lipedema. Group comparisons, correlation analyses, and multivariable regression analyses were performed to examine factors associated with LSQ and LEFS scores.ResultsWomen with LEP had significantly higher LSQ scores and a greater proportion of probable lipedema (36.8% vs 12.3%, p = .001) and high-probability lipedema (19.1% vs 3.1%, p = .003) than controls. Compared with controls, women with LEP had poorer lower extremity function, greater anxiety symptoms, more prominent NP characteristics, and lower physical and mental HRQoL scores (all p < .05). Higher LSQ scores were positively correlated with PainDETECT scores (r = 0.446, p < .001), whereas pain intensity was not significantly correlated with the evaluated clinical outcomes. In multivariable linear regression, PainDETECT score was independently associated with LSQ score (β = 0.382, p = .004). For functional status, both the SF-12 physical (β = 0.352, p = .001) and mental component scores (β = 0.362, p = .002) were independently associated with LEFS scores.ConclusionsProbable lipedema was more frequently identified by LSQ among women with LEP than among healthy controls. NP characteristics were independently associated with greater lipedema-related symptom burden, whereas lower extremity function was independently associated with both physical and mental HRQoL. These findings support the use of lipedema and NP screening as complementary components of the clinical assessment of women with LEP. However, LSQ findings should not be interpreted as a clinical diagnosis of lipedema and require confirmation through appropriate clinical assessment.

Background/Objectives: Lipedema is an adipose tissue disorder associated with body-related burden. This study compared orthorexic eating tendencies between women with and without lipedema and examined associations with body-shape concern and psychological symptoms. Methods: This controlled cross-sectional study included 44 women with lipedema and 44 women without lipedema. Participants completed the Düsseldorf Orthorexia Scale (DOS), Body Shape Questionnaire (BSQ), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Associated variables were examined using multiple linear regression. Results: Women with lipedema had higher DOS scores than women without lipedema (25.07 ± 6.55 vs. 20.48 ± 5.05; Cohen's d = 0.79; p < 0.001). BSQ, HADS-Anxiety, and HADS-Depression scores were also higher in the lipedema group (all p ≤ 0.001). DOS and BSQ scores were positively correlated in both groups. In the multivariable model, which included group status, age, BMI, BSQ, HADS-A, and HADS-D scores, BSQ score was independently associated with DOS score (B = 0.067; 95% CI 0.025-0.108; p = 0.002), whereas group status and the other covariates were not. The model's adjusted R2 was 0.234. Conclusions: Women with lipedema exhibited greater orthorexic eating tendencies, body-shape concern, and psychological symptoms than controls. Body-shape concern was independently associated with orthorexic eating tendencies. The group difference in DOS scores is largely explained by the higher BSQ scores accompanying lipedema; this should not be interpreted as indicating that lipedema is unrelated to orthorexic tendencies. These findings support consideration of body image when addressing eating behavior in lipedema care.

Lipedema is a chronic disorder characterized by the abnormal and disproportionate accumulation of painful subcutaneous adipose fat, primarily affecting the lower limbs and occurring almost exclusively in women. The aim of this controlled cross-sectional study was to compare body image, psychological distress, and psychological well-being in women with (n = 77) and without lipedema (n = 32). Psychological functioning was assessed using validated measures of depressive symptoms (PHQ-9), eating attitudes (EAT-26), perceived stress (PSS), medically unexplained symptoms (M.U.S.), psychological well-being (WHO-5), life satisfaction (SWLS), psychological flexibility (AAQ-II), pain intensity (VAS), together with measures of body image, lifetime psychological burden, maladaptive cognitive beliefs, symptom severity, and anthropometric parameters. Compared with controls, women with lipedema reported significantly greater body image dissatisfaction, perceived distress, M.U.S., depressive symptoms, disordered eating attitudes, and pain, together with lower psychological well-being, life satisfaction, and psychological flexibility (all p < 0.001). Within the lipedema group, PHQ-9 scores were significantly predicted by M.U.S. scores, maladaptive cognitions, and pain intensity (VAS), whereas EAT-26 scores were predicted by PHQ-9 scores and maladaptive cognitions. These findings indicate that lipedema is associated with a substantial psychological burden and support integrating psychological assessment and intervention into multidisciplinary care.

BackgroundLipedema is a chronic adipose tissue disorder characterized by a disproportionate accumulation of painful subcutaneous fat on the extremities. Manual lymphatic drainage (MLD) is routinely used as therapeutic intervention, but its immediate physiological effects remain unclear. We evaluated the immediate impact of MLD on tissue composition in Lipedema using multiparametric Magnetic-resonance-imaging (MRI).Materials and MethodsFifteen women with Lipedema (5 women each for stages I/II/III; median age 43.7 [20.4–68.8] years), thirteen with lower-limb lymphedema (3/5/5 women for stages I/II/III; median age 57.6 [18.6–70.4] years) underwent quantitative MRI of the legs including volumetry, sodium MRI, proton-densitiy fat-fraction (PDFF), T1, T2 and fat-suppressed T2 mapping before and after a standardized 1 h MLD session. Five normal controls (median age 41.9 [23.3–66.2] years) were examined only before MLD. Regions of interest in skin, subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and muscle were analyzed. Pain was assessed by numeric rating scale (NRS). Wilcoxon tests and Spearman correlations were applied to test for differences pre- and post-MLD as well as for associations between measurements and clinical parameters (p < 0.05).ResultsAt baseline, women with Lipedema showed higher tissue sodium and water-sensitive MRI measures compared to controls (skin sodium: median 17.7 vs. 12.3 mmol/L, p < 0.001; skin T2: 56 vs. 37 ms, p = 0.03), though lower than lymphedema (skin sodium: 32.1 mmol/L, skin T2: 70 ms). Tissue sodium in women with Lipedema correlated with clinical stage (r = 0.775, p = 0.001) and pain intensity (r = 0.656, p = 0.01). After MLD, perceived pain intensity decreased (median NRS 2 → 0, p = 0.007) and edema-related MRI metrics including tissue sodium decreased in women with Lipedema (skin sodium: 17.7 → 14.8 mmol/L, p = 0.001; skin T2: 56 → 43 ms, p = 0.001). Parameter changes in the same direction after MLD were detected in women with Lymphedema (skin sodium: 32.1 → 27.1 mmol/L, p = 0.001; skin T2: 70 → 61 ms, p = 0.001).ConclusionManual lymphatic drainage produces immediate, quantifiable changes in treated tissue in women with lipedema, indicating mobilization of sodium-rich interstitial fluid.

BACKGROUND: Lipedema is a prevalent chronic condition in women, characterized by a painful and symmetrical accumulation of adipose tissue primarily in the lower limbs. Its diagnosis is based on specific clinical characteristics; however, these characteristics lack robust scientific validation. Furthermore, lipedema is frequently misdiagnosed as obesity. This study aims to compare quality of life and physical and psychological characteristics between patients with obesity with and without lipedema. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 30 patients with obesity and lipedema (Lip-Obes group) and 29 patients with only obesity (nonLip-Obes group). Quality of life, body composition (BMI, fat free mass, fat mass, waist-to-hip ratio, waist-to-height ratio, leg volume), pain (pain pattern, pressure pain thresholds, pain interference, pain distribution, symptoms of neuropathic pain), physical functioning (hand grip strength, quadriceps strength, functional exercise capacity, functional mobility and physical activity level), and psychosocial functioning (pain catastrophizing, depression, anxiety, and stress, body image dissatisfaction, self-efficacy, and eating difficulties) were assessed using clinical measurements and self-reported outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous variables and Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables. A two-sided p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Compared to the nonLip-Obes group, the Lip-Obes group showed greater impairments in quality of life (p < 0.05). Despite similar body composition variables, the Lip-Obes group had lower waist-to-hip, waist-to-height, upper leg-to-waist, and lower leg-to-waist ratios, as well as higher total limb volume than the nonLip-Obes group. Additionally, the Lip-Obes group reported higher pain intensity, lower pressure pain thresholds in the arms and legs, and greater pain interference than the nonLip-Obes group (p < 0.05). Although hand-grip strength and physical activity levels were comparable, the Lip-Obes group exhibited lower quadriceps strength, functional exercise capacity, and functional mobility (p < 0.05). Additionally, the Lip-Obes group reported higher pain catastrophizing, greater body image dissatisfaction, and more severe eating difficulties than the nonLip-Obes group (p < 0.05). No significant differences were found in depression, anxiety, stress, or self-efficacy between groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: This cross-sectional study highlights the complex nature of lipedema, providing preliminary evidence of differences in quality of life and distinct body composition and physical and physiological characteristics between patients with obesity with and without lipedema. These results emphasize the need for further research to identify diagnostic biomarkers for lipedema through in-depth investigations. Future studies should also focus on developing and optimizing a multidisciplinary treatment approach tailored to the unique characteristics of patients with lipedema.

Background: Lipedema is a chronic adipose tissue disorder predominantly affecting women and is frequently misclassified as obesity. While its physical manifestations are increasingly recognized, less attention has been paid to eating attitudes and psychological well-being in this population. The objective of this study was to descriptively explore eating attitudes and psychological well-being in women with lipedema.Methods:This exploratory cross-sectional study used an anonymous online survey to describe eating attitudes and psychological well-being in women with lipedema. A total of 47 participants completed the Eating Attitudes Test (EAT-26) and the World Health Organization-5 Well-Being Index (WHO-5). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize screening indicators of disordered eating risk and reduced psychological well-being.Results:Approximately two-thirds of participants scored at or above the EAT-26 screening cut-off, reflecting elevated screening indicators of disordered eating risk. When behavioral risk indicators were included, over 70% screened positive according to EAT-26 criteria. Reduced psychological well-being (as indicated by a WHO-5 score of ≤50) was observed in about one-fifth of the sample.Conclusion:In this exploratory sample of women with lipedema, elevated screening indicators of disordered eating risk and reduced psychological well-being were commonly observed. These findings offer preliminary insights suggesting that eating-related risk and reduced well-being may be prevalent in this population. Further research using larger, clinically verified samples is needed to better understand the psychological aspects of lipedema.

Lipoedema is a chronic disorder primarily affecting women. Often mistaken for obesity due to its characteristic build-up of fat cells in the legs and sometimes arms, lipoedema leaves women vulnerable to social stigma. This study investigated the role of fears of compassion and depressive symptoms in the context of weight stigma and internal weight bias in women with lipoedema.

BACKGROUND: Women with lipedema have an abnormal accumulation of adipose tissue that leads to pain and reduced quality of life (QoL). The impact of lipedema on body image and QoL remains largely unknown. The aim of this study is to explore Health-Related QoL (HR-QoL) and body image in women with lipedema and compare it to healthy women without lipedema as well as women with advanced cancer. METHODS: This comparative study included women with lipedema (n = 104), healthy women without lipedema (healthy controls) (n = 42), and an exploratory group of women with advanced cancer (n = 44). HR-QoL was assessed using RAND-36, body image concern was evaluated with the Body Shape Questionnaire (BSQ), and symptoms were assessed with Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS). RESULTS: In total, 190 women were included. Women with lipedema had significantly lower HR-QoL compared to healthy women without lipedema across all eight dimensions (p < 0.001). Women with lipedema had HR-QoL scores comparable to those of women with advanced cancer in four dimensions: physical functioning, bodily pain, and emotional problems. In the general health dimension, women with lipedema had even lower scores than women with advanced cancer (p < 0.05). Body image concerns were significantly greater in the lipedema group than in healthy controls (p = 0.001). Women with lipedema experienced significantly more symptoms than healthy controls, including more pain, fatigue, depression, anxiety, loss of appetite, dyspnea and reduced QoL (<0.001 for all). CONCLUSION: Women with lipedema had as low HR-QoL as women with advanced cancer in several dimensions, significant body image concerns and high symptom burden. These findings underscore the need to develop targeted health care initiatives for these patients.