Measurement of Lower Leg Compression In Vivo: Recommendations for the Performance of Measurements of Interface Pressure and Stiffness

BACKGROUND

Interface pressure and stiffness characterizing the elastic properties of the material are the parameters determining the dosage of compression treatment and should therefore be measured in future clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

To provide some recommendations regarding the use of suitable methods for this indication.

METHOD

This article was formulated based on the results of an international consensus meeting between a group of medical experts and representatives from the industry held in January 2005 in Vienna, Austria.

RESULTS

Proposals are made concerning methods for measuring the interface pressure and for assessing the stiffness of a compression device in an individual patient.

CONCLUSIONS

In vivo measurement of interface pressure is encouraged when clinical and experimental outcomes of compression treatment are to be evaluated.

Evaluation of Compression Therapy: Comparison of Three Sub-bandage Pressure Measuring Devices

Objective:

To compare the consistency of the pressure measurements and the practical aspects of three manometers (Salzman MST; Oxford Talley and Diastron) measuring sub-bandage pressures.

Methods:

Five bandages (tubular elastic straight, tubular elastic graduated, short stretch non-elastic, long stretch elastic, cohesive elastic) were applied to standard models comprising foam-covered 9.5 cm, 12.5 cm diameter plastic tubes and a cone by a single expert bandager using a standard spiral technique with 50% overlap for the non-tubular bandages (NTB). The probes of all three machines were positioned at equidistant points around the circumference of each model at three levels corresponding to the ankle, gaiter and mid-calf measuring points of the MST probe. Two readings were taken for each of three separate applications of each bandage. Statistical analysis utilised ANOVA with Bartlett's test.

Results.

A total of 135 readings were made for each machine and 81 for each type of bandage. Mean pressures among the five bandages types ranged from 12.2 to 35.5 mmHg. A pressure gradient was apparent when NTB bandaging the straight tubes (means 24.7, 23.5, 22.4 mmHg) but not with the cone. There was a statistically significant difference between the three machines (Bartlett's test 23.6, p<0.0001), with the lowest variances for the MST and similar variances for the Oxford and Diastron.

Conclusion.

In terms of measurement variance this experiment indicates that the MST is the preferred machine for future experiments.