In vivo measurement of compression bandage interface pressures: The first study

Clinical Utility of the Portable Pressure-Measuring Device for Compression Garment Pressure Measurement on Hypertrophic Scars by Burn Injury during Compression Therapy

Compression therapy for burn scars can accelerate scar maturation and improve clinical symptoms (pruritus and pain). This study objectively verified the effect of pressure garment therapy in maintaining a therapeutic pressure range for hypertrophic scars. Sixty-five participants (aged 20~70 years) with partial- or full-thickness burns, Vancouver scar scale score of ≥4, and a hypertrophic scar of ≥4 cm × 4 cm were enrolled. Compression pressure was measured weekly using a portable pressure-monitoring device to regulate this pressure at 15~25 mmHg for 2 months. In the control group, the compression garment use duration and all other burn rehabilitation measures were identical except for compression monitoring. No significant difference was noted in the initial evaluations between the two groups (p > 0.05). The improvements in the amount of change in scar thickness (p = 0.03), erythema (p = 0.03), and sebum (p = 0.02) were significantly more in the pressure monitoring group than in the control group. No significant differences were noted in melanin levels, trans-epidermal water loss, or changes measured using the Cutometer® between the two groups. The efficacy of compression garment therapy for burn-related hypertrophic scars can be improved using a pressure-monitoring device to maintain the therapeutic range.

Statischer Stiffness-Index von zwei Multikomponenten-Bandagen-Kompressionssystemen: Ergebnisse einer randomisierten kontrollierten Studie an gesunden Probanden

Zweck Vergleich der Leistung von zwei Mehrkomponenten-Kompressionssystemen.

Methoden In dieser randomisierten, kontrollierten Studie wurden beide Beine von 25 gesunden Probanden nach dem Zufallsprinzip entweder mit einem Kompressionssystem der neuen Generation (UrgoK1, eine einzige Binde) oder einem etablierten System (UrgoK2, zwei Binden) als Kontrolle bandagiert. Beide Systeme wurden Tag und Nacht getragen. Arbeits- und Ruhegrenzflächendruck wurden unmittelbar nach dem Anlegen und nach 4 h, 24 h, 48 h und 72 h gemessen und der Static Stiffness Index (SSI) berechnet.

Ergebnisse Nach 4 Stunden wurden mit beiden Systemen ähnlich hohe Arbeitsdrücke und mäßige Ruhedrücke registriert. Im Zeitverlauf folgten die Druckänderungen und des SSI den gleichen Kurven. Nach 48 h wurde ein SSI ≥ 10 mmHg bei 88 % der getesteten und 76 % der Kontrollsysteme erreicht, was die Nichtunterlegenheit des Testsystems bestätigt (p = 0,016). Beide Systeme wiesen gute Halteeigenschaften auf und waren gut verträglich, aber das getestete System wurde von der Mehrheit der Probanden als deutlich angenehmer empfunden und schließlich dem Kontrollsystem vorgezogen.

Schlussfolgerung Das neue Kompressionssystem erreichte ähnliche Leistungen wie die Kontrolle, aber seine bessere Akzeptanz könnte ein Vorteil für die Patientencompliance sein. Diese vielversprechenden Ergebnisse müssen in einer klinischen Studie an Patienten mit Unterschenkelulcera und/oder Ödemen bestätigt werden.

Comparison between the portable pressure measuring device and PicoPress® for garment pressure measurement on hypertrophic burn scar during compression therapy

PURPOSE

The current standard treatment for hypertrophic scars following burn injury is pressure garment therapy. The experimenters developed the novel portable pressure measuring device using silicon piezoresistive sensors. As PicoPress® is the most accurate (i.e., lowest variation and error) manometric sensor for pressure measurement, we sought to compare and examine the accuracy of the novel device regarding in vitro pressure measurements at the hypertrophic scar-pressure garment interface.

METHODS

The novel device was designed to operate in non-corrosive media, such as air. The device can use up to six pressure sensing points and was developed to adjust the number of pressure sensors according to the size of the scar. Pressure measurements were acquired through a readout circuit consisting of an analog-to-digital converter, a microprocessor, and a Bluetooth transmission module for wireless data transmission to an external device. All signals were converted into mean pressure expressed in millimeters of mercury (mmHg). The mean pressure values measured by the sensors were compared to those obtained from PicoPress®. 55 garment pressures recordings were obtained from the sensors over this study conducted in 2018-February 2020. We then analyzed the test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). PicoPress® was also employed in the same pressure garments for obtaining similar measurements. A two way random effects model ICC with 95% confidence intervals was used to compare the mean pressure values obtained from the silicon piezoresistive sensors to the PicoPress® measurements.

RESULTS

The test-retest reliability of the pressure sensors was close to the acceptable level for clinical use regarding stationary interface pressure measurement (ICC = 0.99, 95% CI 0.990-0.997). The mean pressure obtained from the silicon piezoresistive pressure sensors showed an accordance with the measurements from PicoPress® (ICC = 0.97, 95% CI 0.947-0.985).

CONCLUSION

The novel device may present a viable alternative to PicoPress® for garment pressure measurements. In addition, the novel device improves adaptability to the hypertrophic scar shape and size. Complementary characteristics such as wireless transmission to an external device may allow burn patients to continuously wear the device for real-time measurements during pressure garment therapy, thus improving existing devices including PicoPress®.

Controlling compression bandaging pressure in leg ulcer research trials: A summary of the literature

Compression bandaging remains the ‘gold standard’ intervention for the treatment of venous leg ulcers. Numerous studies have investigated the effect of a large variety of compression bandaging techniques and materials on venous leg ulcer healing. However, the majority of these studies failed to monitor both actual bandage application pressures and the bandaging competency of participating clinicians. A series of literature searches to explore the methods, practices, recommendations and results of monitoring compression bandaging pressures in leg ulcer research trials were undertaken. This included investigating the reliability and validity of sub-bandage pressure monitors and the degree to which compression bandaging achieves the recommended sub-bandage pressure. The literature revealed inconsistencies regarding the monitoring of sub-bandage pressure and in sub-bandage pressures produced by clinicians. This creates difficulties when comparing study outcomes and attempting to develop evidence-based practice recommendations.

Customizing elastic pressure bandages for reuse to a predetermined, sub-bandage pressure: A randomized controlled trial

Objective

A randomized clinical trial was performed to compare the effectiveness of unmarked bandages and customized bandages with visual markers in reproducing the desired sub-bandage pressure during self-bandaging by patients.

Method

Ninety patients were randomly allocated to two groups (“customized bandages” and “unmarked bandages”) and asked to perform self-bandaging three times. The achievement of a pressure between 35 and 45 mmHg in at least two of the three attempts was defined as adequate quality.

Results

Adequate quality was achieved by 33.0% when applying the unmarked bandages, and 60.0% when applying the customized bandages ( p = 0.02). Use of the customized bandage and previous experience of bandaging were independent predictors for the achievement of the predetermined sub-bandage pressure ( p = 0.005 and p = 0.021, respectively).

Conclusion

Customized bandages may achieve predetermined sub-bandage pressures more closely than standard, unmarked, compression bandages.

Clinical trials registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02729688). Effectiveness of a Pressure Indicator Guided and a Conventional Bandaging in Treatment of Venous Leg Ulcer. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02729688

Use of customised pressure-guided elastic bandages to improve efficacy of compression bandaging for venous ulcers

Compression bandaging is a major treatment of chronic venous ulcers. Its efficacy depends on the applied pressure, which is dependent on the skill of the individual applying the bandage. To improve the quality of bandaging by reducing the variability in compression bandage interface pressures, we changed elastic bandages into a customised version by marking them with circular ink stamps, applied when the stretch achieves an interface pressure between 35 and 45 mmHg. Repeated applications by 20 residents of the customised bandage and non-marked bandage to one smaller and one larger leg were evaluated by measuring the sub-bandage pressure. The results demonstrated that the target pressure range is more often attained with the customised bandage compared with the non-marked bandage. The customised bandage improved the efficacy of compression bandaging for venous ulcers, with optimal sub-bandage pressure.