K Suehiro1, N Morikage2, M Murakami2, O Yamashita2, T Harada2, K Ueda2, M Samura2, Y Tanaka2, K Hamano2. 1. Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery and Clinical Science, Yamaguchi University Graduate School of Medicine, Yamaguchi, Japan ksuehiro-circ@umin.ac.jp. 2. Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery and Clinical Science, Yamaguchi University Graduate School of Medicine, Yamaguchi, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To study the differences in impact on venous hemodynamics between larger size strong graduated elastic compression stockings (GECS) and appropriate size strong/moderate GECS. METHOD: In healthy legs fitted for a small (Group S; n = 8) and large (Group L; n = 8) GECS, air plethysmography was performed without GECS, with an appropriate size strong GECS (GECS1), with a three-size too large strong GECS (GECS2), and with an appropriate size moderate GECS (GECS3) in this order. RESULTS: In Group S, interface pressure with GECS2 was equal to or higher than that with GECS3. Decreased venous volume, unchanged ejection volume, and decreased residual volume were achieved by GECS, but differences in these parameters among GECS were not observed. Although insignificant, a similar tendency was found in Group L. CONCLUSIONS: A larger size strong GECS seemed to have equivalent interface pressure and impact on venous hemodynamics compared to an appropriate size moderate or strong GECS.
OBJECTIVES: To study the differences in impact on venous hemodynamics between larger size strong graduated elastic compression stockings (GECS) and appropriate size strong/moderate GECS. METHOD: In healthy legs fitted for a small (Group S; n = 8) and large (Group L; n = 8) GECS, air plethysmography was performed without GECS, with an appropriate size strong GECS (GECS1), with a three-size too large strong GECS (GECS2), and with an appropriate size moderate GECS (GECS3) in this order. RESULTS: In Group S, interface pressure with GECS2 was equal to or higher than that with GECS3. Decreased venous volume, unchanged ejection volume, and decreased residual volume were achieved by GECS, but differences in these parameters among GECS were not observed. Although insignificant, a similar tendency was found in Group L. CONCLUSIONS: A larger size strong GECS seemed to have equivalent interface pressure and impact on venous hemodynamics compared to an appropriate size moderate or strong GECS.
Authors: Cleusa Ema Quilici Belczak; José Maria Pereira de Godoy; Amélia Cristina Seidel; Sergio Belczak; Rubiana Neves Ramos; Roberto Augusto Caffaro Journal: Int J Vasc Med Date: 2018-10-01