| Literature DB >> 24396284 |
Pawel Dolibog1, Andrzej Franek1, Jakub Taradaj2, Patrycja Dolibog1, Edward Blaszczak1, Anna Polak3, Ligia Brzezinska-Wcislo4, Antoni Hrycek5, Tomasz Urbanek6, Jacek Ziaja7, Magdalena Kolanko4.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare five types of compression therapy in venous leg ulcers (intermittent pneumatic vs. stockings vs. multi layer vs. two layer short stretch bandages vs. Unna boots). Primary study endpoints were analysis of changes of the total ulcer surface area, volume and linear dimensions inside observed groups. The secondary end points were comparisons between all groups the number of completely healed wounds (ulcer healing rates), Gilman index and percentage change of ulcer surface area. In total, 147 patients with unilateral venous leg ulcers were included to this study. Participants were randomly allocated to the groups: A, B, C, D and E. After two months the healing rate was the highest in group A (intermittent pneumatic compression) - 57.14%, 16/28 patients, B (ulcer stocking system) - 56.66%, 17/30 patients and C (multi layer short stretch bandage) - 58.62%, 17/29 patients. Significantly much worse rate found in group D (two layer short stretch bandages) - only 16.66%, 5/30 patients and E (Unna boots) - 20%, 6/30 patients. The analysis of changes of the percentage of Gilman index and wound total surface area confirmed that intermittent pneumatic compression, stockings and multi layer bandages are the most efficient. The two layer short - stretch bandages and Unna boots appeared again much less effective.Entities:
Keywords: Unna boots; compression stockings; short stretch bandages; venous leg ulcers; wound healing
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24396284 PMCID: PMC3880989 DOI: 10.7150/ijms.7548
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Med Sci ISSN: 1449-1907 Impact factor: 3.738
Compression therapy and literature
| Authors | Material | Methods | Results |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duby et al. | A - 25 patients | A - short stretch bandages | A - *40%, **60% after 12 weeks |
| Colgan et al. | A - 10 patients | A - Unna boots | A - *60% after 12 weeks |
| Danielsen et al. | A - 20 patients | A - medium stretch bandages | A - **45% after 4 weeks |
| Vowden | 50 patients | intermittent compression | **64.5% and 80% after 12 and 20 weeks |
| Partsch et al | A - 53 patients | A - multi layer compression | A - *62% after 16 weeks |
| Meyer et al. | A - 57 patients | A - short stretch bandages | A - *58% after 24 weeks |
| O'Brien et al. | A - 100 patients | A - multi layer compression | A - *54% after 12 weeks |
| Franks et al. | A - 70 patients | A - multi layer compression | A - *69% after 24 weeks |
| Junger et al. | A - 60 patients | A - stockings | A - *47.5% after 12 weeks |
| Vanscheidt et al. | 116 patients | Unna boots | *25.9%, **42.9% after 12 weeks |
| Brizzio et al. | A - 21 patients | A - stockings | A - *90% after 24 weeks |
*healing rate
**percentage decrease of wound area
Figure 1Flow diagram through the study
Characteristics of participants and ulcers
| Group A | Group B | Group C | Group D | Group E | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients** | 28 | 30 | 29 | 30 | 30 | >0.05 |
| Age (years)** | >0.05 | |||||
| Range | 51 - 82 | 48 - 81 | 53 - 81 | 40 - 69 | 40 - 72 | |
| Average | 62.24 | 63.88 | 63.47 | 64.03 | 65.13 | |
| Median | 61.89 | 63.12 | 62.83 | 64.01 | 65.19 | |
| SD | 9.34 | 10.11 | 9.89 | 10.11 | 10.87 | |
| Sex* | >0.05 | |||||
| Female | 19 | 20 | 18 | 20 | 20 | |
| Male | 9 | 10 | 11 | 10 | 10 | |
| Weight (kg)** | >0.05 | |||||
| Range | 62 - 95 | 70 - 119 | 54 - 99 | 71 - 109 | 68 - 91 | |
| Average | 80.11 | 86.03 | 80.11 | 83.23 | 81.23 | |
| Median | 80.09 | 87.01 | 79.89 | 83.01 | 82.15 | |
| SD | 11.22 | 17.12 | 11.92 | 13.12 | 12.01 | |
| Height (cm)** | >0.05 | |||||
| Range | 147 - 180 | 160 - 175 | 164 - 180 | 166 - 188 | 164 - 189 | |
| Average | 162.11 | 166.05 | 169.89 | 169.02 | 169.89 | |
| Median | 163,44 | 167.21 | 170.04 | 170.11 | 171.04 | |
| SD | 12.14 | 9.12 | 10.88 | 10.22 | 11.02 | |
| Localization of VLU* | >0.05 | |||||
| Medial ankle | 17 | 18 | 16 | 18 | 18 | |
| Lateral ankle | 7 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 9 | |
| Frontal surface on tibia | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | |
| Duration of VLU (months)** | >0.05 | |||||
| Range | 1 - 36 | 5 - 46 | 1 - 38 | 2 - 36 | 4 - 38 | |
| Average | 30.12 | 32.67 | 28.88 | 29.81 | 29.89 | |
| Median | 32.02 | 34.02 | 29.12 | 30.12 | 31.01 | |
| SD | 48.56 | 48.22 | 35.23 | 35.04 | 35.78 | |
| Initial wound size** (cm2) | >0.05 | |||||
| Range | 0.3 - 72.6 | 1.2 - 40.2 | 3.9 - 46.6 | 4.7 - 40.1 | 5.2 - 37.3 | |
| Average | 25.16 | 24.41 | 22.09 | 22.44 | 21.89 | |
| Median | 22.80 | 23.12 | 20.02 | 19.99 | 18.39 | |
| SD | 31.17 | 20.23 | 14.01 | 11.87 | 10.11 |
*the χ2 test
**the Kruskal - Wallis analysis
Other clinical findings of participants in the trial
| Group A | Group B | Group C | Group D | Group E | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | ||
| Edema, skin hyperpigmentation, lipo - dermatosclerosis | 28 (100) | 30 (100) | 29 (100) | 30 (100) | 30 (100) | >0.05 |
| Adipositas (BMI>30 kg/m2) | 14 (50) | 15 (50) | 14 (48) | 15 (30) | 14 (47) | >0.05 |
| Smokers | 4 (14) | 5 (17) | 4 (13) | 5 (17) | 4 (13) | >0.05 |
| CVI | >0.05 | |||||
| unilateral | 14 (50) | 15 (50) | 15 (52) | 15 (50) | 15 (50) | |
| bilateral | 14 (50) | 15 (50) | 14 (48) | 15 (50) | 15 (50) |
*the χ2 test
The CEAP in patients with venous leg ulcers
| CEAP class | Group A | Group B | Group C | Group D | Group E | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C6EPAS2,3PR | 13 | 13 | 13 | 14 | 13 | >0.05 |
| C6EPAS4PR | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | >0.05 |
| C6EPAS2D13PR | 4 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | >0.05 |
| C6EPAS3D13PR | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | >0.05 |
| C6EPAS2,3D13,14P18PR | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | >0.05 |
| C6ESAS2,3D13,14P18PR | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | >0.05 |
| Total number of patients | 28 | 30 | 29 | 30 | 30 |
*the χ2 test
Legends:
C6EPAS2,3PR (open ulcer, primary etiology, venous reflux in upper and lower segments of greater saphenous vein)
C6EPAS4PR (open ulcer, primary etiology, venous reflux in short saphenous vein)
C6EPAS2,D13PR (open ulcer, primary etiology, venous reflux in upper segments of greater saphenous and femoral vein)
C6EPAS3,D13PR (open ulcer, primary etiology, venous reflux in lower segments of greater saphenous and femoral vein)
C6EPAS2,3D13PR (open ulcer, primary etiology, venous reflux in upper/lower segments of greater saphenous and femoral vein
C6EPAS2,3D13,14,P18PR (open ulcer, primary etiology, venous reflux in upper/lower segments of greater saphenous, popliteal and femoral veins, saphenofemoral and saphenopopliteal junctions)
Results in patients with venous leg ulcers
| Group | Average ± SD | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total ulcer surface area (cm2) | A | 25.16±31.17 10.13±20.88 | |
| B | 24.41±20.23 9.67±20.02 | ||
| C | 22.09±14.01 8.12±17.23 | ||
| D | 22.44±11.87 16.27±20.23 | ||
| E | 21.89±10.11 15.78±19.57 | ||
| Length (cm) | A | 5.78±3.02 3.21±4.88 | |
| B | 5.11±3.11 3.25±5.33 | ||
| C | 4.56±3.09 3.01±5.11 | ||
| D | 4.87±4.03 3.89±5.23 | ||
| E | 4.76±3.98 3.71±5.03 | ||
| Width (cm) | A | 3.78±2.89 2.51±4.99 | |
| B | 3.27±2.39 2.32±4.14 | ||
| C | 3.22±1.71 2.38±5.03 | ||
| D | 3.32±2.02 2.89±5.23 | ||
| E | 3.12±1.89 2.72±5.11 | ||
| Volume (cm3) | A | 2.39±3.11 0.38±2.12 | |
| B | 2.44±4.04 0.41±2.11 | ||
| C | 1.78±4.76 0.42±2.21 | ||
| D | 1.67±4.02 0.39±2.76 | ||
| E | 1.45±3.88 0.41±2.67 |
*Wilcoxon test
Figure 2Comparison between groups in terms of healing rate. *Fisher test. Legends: - groups A and D (57.14% vs. 16.66%, P=0.03), - groups B and D (56.66% vs.16.66%, P=0.03), - groups C and D (58.62% vs. 16.66%, P=0.03), - groups A and E (57.14% vs. 20.00%, P=0.03), - groups B and E (56.66% vs.20.00%, P=0.03), - groups C and E (58.62% vs. 20.00%, P=0.03).
Figure 3Comparison between groups in terms of Gilman index [cm]. * the Kruskal-Wallis analysis. Legends: - groups A and D (0.52 cm vs. 0.20 cm, P=0.04), - groups B and D (0.49 cm vs. 0.20 cm, P=0.04), - groups C and D (0.51 cm vs. 0.20 cm, P=0.04), - groups A and E (0.52 cm vs. 0.23 cm, P=0.04), - groups B and E (0.49 cm vs. 0.23 cm, P=0.04), - groups C and E (0.51 cm vs. 0.23 cm, P=0.04).
Figure 4Comparison between groups in terms of change of the percentage ulcer size. Legends: - groups A and D (48.11% vs. 17.77%, P=0.04), - groups B and D (41.22% vs. 17.77%, P=0.04), - groups C and D (49.02% vs. 17.77%, P=0.04), - groups A and E (48.11% vs. 20.48%, P=0.04), - groups B and E (41.22% vs. 20.48%, P=0.04), - groups C and E (49.02% vs. 20.48%, P=0.04).