D Rimaud1, R Convert2, P Calmels3. 1. Département de médecine physique et de réadaptation, hôpital Bellevue, 42055 Saint-Étienne cedex 02, France. Electronic address: diana.rimaud@chu-st-etienne.fr. 2. Thuasne SAS, 118-120, rue Marius-Aufan, 92307 Levallois-Perret, France. 3. Département de médecine physique et de réadaptation, hôpital Bellevue, 42055 Saint-Étienne cedex 02, France.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Compression therapy has precise technical characteristics but in vivo pressures exerted by bandages are still poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To perform in vivo pressure measurements of different compression bandages bearing different technical characteristics with different application methods. METHOD: Interface pressure was measured on the lower limb of 20 healthy women at 3 different points (B1, C and F) using 6 compression techniques (stockings, non-elastic bandage, elastic bandages with 2 technical characteristics and 3 application methods), and in 3 positions. RESULTS: All elastic compression bandages respected the principle of graduated pressure along the length of the limb (P<0.0001), but not the non-elastic bandage. The pressures increase significantly (P<0.0001) between the supine position and the sitting or standing position, especially with the non-elastic compression bandage. There is a marked variation in pressures between subjects for some bandages (non-elastic and elastic applied using the figure-of-eight technique). The pressure increases significantly with the number of bandage overlaps (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Elastic and non-elastic bandages behave differently from one another, and non-elastic bandages not appearing to comply with medical recommendations concerning graduated pressure. There is a high level of variability between subjects for some compression bandages (non-elastic and figure-of-eight methods).
UNLABELLED: Compression therapy has precise technical characteristics but in vivo pressures exerted by bandages are still poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To perform in vivo pressure measurements of different compression bandages bearing different technical characteristics with different application methods. METHOD: Interface pressure was measured on the lower limb of 20 healthy women at 3 different points (B1, C and F) using 6 compression techniques (stockings, non-elastic bandage, elastic bandages with 2 technical characteristics and 3 application methods), and in 3 positions. RESULTS: All elastic compression bandages respected the principle of graduated pressure along the length of the limb (P<0.0001), but not the non-elastic bandage. The pressures increase significantly (P<0.0001) between the supine position and the sitting or standing position, especially with the non-elastic compression bandage. There is a marked variation in pressures between subjects for some bandages (non-elastic and elastic applied using the figure-of-eight technique). The pressure increases significantly with the number of bandage overlaps (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Elastic and non-elastic bandages behave differently from one another, and non-elastic bandages not appearing to comply with medical recommendations concerning graduated pressure. There is a high level of variability between subjects for some compression bandages (non-elastic and figure-of-eight methods).