| Literature DB >> 25637090 |
Klaus Edgar Roth1, Boris Mandryka2, Gerrit Steffen Maier3, Uwe Maus4, Manfred Berres5, Jan-Dirk Rompe6, Friedrich Bodem7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Compression of the tissue beneath tourniquets used in limb surgery is associated with varying degrees of soft tissue damage. The interaction between fluids and applied pressure seems to play an important role in the appearance of skin lesions. The extent of the transfer of force between the tourniquet and the skin, however, has yet to be studied. The aim of the present study was to quantify in-vivo the transfer of pressure between a tourniquet and the skin of the thigh.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25637090 PMCID: PMC4327976 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-015-0454-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Figure 1Star plot of fitted means at time 0 (middle polygon) with lower and upper 95% confidence limits (inner and outer polygon). Dashed circle shows overall mean. Schematic diagram of the sensor layout; A = Array, S = Sensor. Sensors located in the area of overlap of the cuff (A1S1-3) showed significantly higher pressure values than the anteromedially positioned sensor A2S8.
Figure 2Means per position, aggregated over patients and intervals of 5 minutes.
Descriptive statistics of the patients (Min.: Minimum, Max.: Maximum, SD: Standard deviation, Qu.: Quartile, BMI: Body-Mass-Index)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min | 153 | 52 | 20.83 | 48 | 120 |
| 1st Qu. | 167 | 77 | 24.91 | 54 | 130 |
| Median | 174 | 81 | 26.2 | 56 | 140 |
| Mean | 173.2 | 85.32 | 28.42 | 57.32 | 138.8 |
| 3rd Qu. | 179 | 92 | 30.35 | 60 | 146 |
| Max. | 195 | 146 | 41.75 | 69 | 174 |
| SD | 9.57 | 18.12 | 5.26 | 5.19 | 12.6 |
Univariate statistics for each sensor position (Qu.: Quartile, Min.: Minimum, Max.: Maximum)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1S1 | 238.8 | 323.6 | 336.3 | 333.8 | 344.8 | 421.1 |
| A1S2 | 232.4 | 317.2 | 335.2 | 331.5 | 346.9 | 413.7 |
| A1S3 | 255.7 | 325.7 | 337.3 | 336.9 | 349.0 | 412.6 |
| A1S4 | 244.1 | 321,4 | 337,3 | 335,4 | 347,9 | 419,0 |
| A1S5 | 173.0 | 326,7 | 339,5 | 337,9 | 347,9 | 427,4 |
| A1S6 | 227.1 | 318,3 | 334,2 | 331,0 | 344,8 | 399,9 |
| A1S7 | 238.8 | 314,0 | 325,7 | 327,4 | 343,7 | 402,0 |
| A1S8 | 233.5 | 317,2 | 329,9 | 329,0 | 342,6 | 388,2 |
| A2S1 | 79.76 | 317,2 | 327,8 | 327,4 | 338,4 | 408,4 |
| A2S2 | 88.24 | 320,4 | 332,0 | 332,5 | 343,7 | 399,9 |
| A2S3 | 63.86 | 320,4 | 334,2 | 332,4 | 344,8 | 421,1 |
| A2S4 | 141.2 | 320,4 | 334,2 | 333,8 | 346,9 | 394,6 |
| A2S5 | 144.4 | 308,7 | 323,6 | 322,8 | 337,3 | 396,7 |
| A2S6 | 93.54 | 315,1 | 328,3 | 326,9 | 340,5 | 388,2 |
| A2S7 | 111.6 | 317,2 | 331,0 | 327,7 | 340,5 | 376,6 |
| A2S8 | 123.3 | 314,0 | 327,8 | 325,6 | 340,5 | 382,9 |
Coefficients and confidence limits of the mixed model’s fixed effects
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1S1 |
|
|
|
|
| A1S2 |
|
|
|
|
| A1S3 |
|
|
|
|
| A1S4 |
|
|
|
|
| A1S5 |
|
|
|
|
| A1S6 |
|
|
|
|
| A1S7 |
|
|
|
|
| A1S8 |
|
|
|
|
| A2S1 |
|
|
|
|
| A2S2 |
|
|
|
|
| A2S3 |
|
|
|
|
| A2S4 |
|
|
|
|
| A2S5 |
|
|
|
|
| A2S6 |
|
|
|
|
| A2S7 |
|
|
|
|
| A2S8 |
|
|
|
|
| e -0,161 |
|
|
|
|
The model was specified without intercept: coefficients of sensor positions are estimated means. The standard error of all estimated means is 1.87. (CI: Confidence interval).
Figure 3Fitted asymptotic curves from separate mixed models for each position. Thick line shows asymptotic curve fitted for all positions simultaneously.