Comparison of interface pressures of three compression bandaging systems used on healthy volunteers

Comparison of interface pressures of three compression bandaging systems used on healthy volunteers

Author(s) : M. J√ľnger, A. Ladwig, S. Bohbot, H. Haase


JWC_18_11_474_Junger-web

Objective: To compare changes in interface pressures of three compression systems (four layer, two layer and short stretch) recorded over seven days in healthy volunteers in different positions: supine, sitting, active standing and working pressure during exercise.

Method: Twenty-four volunteers were bandaged with one of the three compression systems on both legs. Interface pressures were measured at inclusion (day 0) and on days 1, 3 and 7 using an air sensor system, with the sensor placed in the medial B1 position above the inner ankle. In addition, the volume of the lower legs were also measured on days 0 and 7 using a three-dimensional imaging system. Comfort and tolerability were also assessed.

Results: The performance, based on the loss of interface pressure compared with baseline, of the two-layer system was partially better than that of the short-stretch system for maximal working pressure and loss of volume. The two-layer system and short-stretch system had similar results for the supine, sitting and active standing positions. No difference was observed between the two-layer system and the four-layer system for the maximal working pressure. However, the two-layer system compared better than the two other systems for comfort and tolerability: 25% of the patients treated with the four-layer system discontinued the treatment after three days because of pain.

Conclusion: The two-layer bandage system maintained, over one week, a similar level of sub-bandage pressure similar to a four-layer system and was partially better than short-stretch bandaging. However, the volunteers found the two-layer system more comfortable and tolerable than the other two systems.

Declaration of interest: The investigators received an education grant from Urgo for the study. However, Urgo had no influence on the data analysis or interpretation.


Download PDF

 

Last update : November 23, 2017