Open-label, randomised, multicentre crossover trial assessing two-layer compression bandaging for chronic venous insufficiency: results of the APRICOT trial

Evaluation of reduced ('Lite') compression versus brief bandaging to manage post-operative pain after total knee arthroplasty surgery; a single-centre randomised controlled trial

PURPOSE

Investigate efficacy of reduced compression bandage for the control of pain after total knee arthroplasty.

PATIENTS & METHODS

Prospective, single-centre, randomised controlled trial involving data for 56 out of 94 consented patients; 29 standard care versus 27 Andoflex TLC Calamine Lite. Comparison of standard care (non-compression bandage applied for up to one day) versus Andoflex TLC Calamine Lite (25-30 mmHg) two-layer compression bandage worn for five days. Outcomes measured with validated pain (McGill, 10-cm visual scale) and functionality (KOOS) tools.

RESULTS

At day 5 post-surgery, the median pain level was 3.0 cm vs 4.0 cm (p-value 0.47, Mann-Whitney U test) respectively. Generic pain levels, pain types, and knee functionality did not differ between the interventions at days 3/5/12 and week 6 post-surgery. An exception was the degree of 'tender' pain at day 12, which was significantly lower in the Andoflex TLC Calamine Lite arm (p-value 0.041, Mann-Whitney U test). Binary logistic regression analysis showed that application of Andoflex TLC Calamine Lite, administration of oxycodone, and male sex were all significantly associated with less 'tender' pain.

CONCLUSION

Reduced compression bandaging does not affect overall pain levels post knee arthroplasty surgery, but may alleviate pain experienced as 'tender', highlighting the different types of pain that may be experienced. Patients' need for, and the use of, opioid medication (oxycodone) is a significant confounding variable when assessing adjuvant therapy to control pain. The applicability of reduced compression bandaging may therefore be limited and is less efficient than medical pain control.

Comparison of the Efficacy of Two Elastic Bandages for Forearm Hematoma After Transradial Coronary Intervention

Background: This study compares the efficacy of two elastic bandages in treating forearm hematoma after transradial coronary intervention.

Methods: A total of 60 patients with moderate or severe forearm hematoma following transradial coronary intervention were enrolled in this study. They were randomly divided into two groups, as follows: an Idealast-haft elastic bandage group (the observation group) and a control group. The patients in the Idealast-haft elastic bandage group received compression bandaging with Idealast-haft elastic bandages and the patients in the control group received compression bandaging with Nylexorgrip elastic bandages. Observation indexes related to, for example, forearm pain, arterial pulsation, blistering, skin color, and hemostasis time were compared between the two groups.

Results: The results revealed that the times taken for pain disappearance, arterial pulse recovery, blister disappearance, skin color recovery, and compression hemostasis were significantly shorter in the Idealast-haft elastic bandage group than in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The hematoma range and the arm circumference at the severest part of the hematoma decreased faster in the observation group than in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: The Idealast-haft elastic bandage is more effective than the Nylexorgrip elastic bandage in patients with forearm hematoma following transradial coronary intervention and should therefore be used in such cases.

Application of compression bandaging post-osteotomy results in altered pain profile; results of a single-centre randomised controlled trial

PURPOSE

To assess if application of dual-layer compression bandage to osteotomy patients post-surgery can positively influence levels of post-operative pain and swelling.

PATIENTS & METHODS

Prospective, single-centre, randomised controlled trial comparing standard care, non-compression bandaging, versus Coban™ 2 (3M). Seven day application of the latter to index leg of osteotomy patients.

RESULTS

Primary outcome data was available for 36 out of 49 study subjects (18 standard care versus 18 Coban™ 2 subjects). Median 10-cm scale pain levels showed a statistically non-significant difference at day 5 and day 12 post-surgery between standard care and Coban™ 2 respectively: 5.5 cm vs 2.5 cm (p-value 0.068) and 4.0 cm vs 2.3 cm (p-value 0.39). However, on day 12 (p-value 0.029) and week 6 (p-value 0.027), 'throbbing pain' was significantly higher for Coban™ 2 patients. Changes in limb swelling measures, comparing before and after the surgical procedure, did not differ between treatment arms. Compression led to more patients reporting bandage-related discomfort (6% standard care versus 63% Coban™ 2 patients).

CONCLUSION

Compression bandaging changes the post-surgery pain profile in osteotomy patients, but does not reduce leg swelling. Any subsequent leg compression trials must take into account patient comfort and titrate intervention length and compression rates.