BACKGROUND: Compressive treatment is recognized as therapy to prevent and treat chronic venous insufficiency. Measurement of the pressure exerted by compression hosiery is important within the context of clinical trials. Different pressure sensors are available, with different performance. OBJECTIVE: This study is a metrological characterization of three interface pressure sensors (Salzmann, Talley, and Kikuhime). We compare their performance in terms of accuracy, repeatability, and sensitivity to flexion on a curved surface. METHOD: The measuring devices were first tested in a pressurized chamber and then compared by placing the probes on a wooden leg model using compression stockings of known pressure. RESULTS: In a pressurized chamber, the three systems gave linear responses and an overall error of 15.4%, 3.1%, and 4.3% for Salzmann, Talley, and Kikuhime, respectively. The repeatability error was less than 0.6 mmHg. On the leg model, the overall errors differ between the systems. Repeatability was comparable between the sensors. CONCLUSION: The three sensors displayed interesting performances for measuring in situ interface pressure, but they had different advantages and limitations. Performance and practical factors will determine the choice of a sensor for specific experiments.
BACKGROUND: Compressive treatment is recognized as therapy to prevent and treat chronic venous insufficiency. Measurement of the pressure exerted by compression hosiery is important within the context of clinical trials. Different pressure sensors are available, with different performance. OBJECTIVE: This study is a metrological characterization of three interface pressure sensors (Salzmann, Talley, and Kikuhime). We compare their performance in terms of accuracy, repeatability, and sensitivity to flexion on a curved surface. METHOD: The measuring devices were first tested in a pressurized chamber and then compared by placing the probes on a wooden leg model using compression stockings of known pressure. RESULTS: In a pressurized chamber, the three systems gave linear responses and an overall error of 15.4%, 3.1%, and 4.3% for Salzmann, Talley, and Kikuhime, respectively. The repeatability error was less than 0.6 mmHg. On the leg model, the overall errors differ between the systems. Repeatability was comparable between the sensors. CONCLUSION: The three sensors displayed interesting performances for measuring in situ interface pressure, but they had different advantages and limitations. Performance and practical factors will determine the choice of a sensor for specific experiments.
Authors: Ka Po Maggie Tang; Kit Lun Yick; Pui Ling Li; Joanne Yip; King Hei Or; Kam Hong Chau Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2020-11-30 Impact factor: 3.576