BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although compression therapy is a very effective therapy in reducing stasis-induced complaints, the wearing comfort is not always as requested. Most frequent problems are dryness of the skin and itching. This randomized, cross-over trial investigated 33 healthy participants and compared 2 differentmedical compression stockings: conventional stockings (type A = MCS) versus compression stockings with integrated care emulsion (type B = MCS-SkC). METHODS: Participants were divided into 2 cohorts. Both compression types were worn one after the other, 1 week each. The cohorts were named according to the sequence of the wearing periods (cohort AB/BA). PRIMARY OUTCOME: skin hydration. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: transepidermal water loss (TEWL), skin roughness, leg volume, interface pressure, and questionnaires about stasis-induced complaints and wearing comfort. RESULTS: Skin hydration: significant reduction after wearing MCS in both cohorts (p < 0.001); preservation of skin moisture after wearing MCS-SkC (p = 0.546 and p = 0.1631). TEWL: significant increase after wearing MCS (p = 0.007 and p = 0.0031); significant reduction by wearing MCS-SkC (p = 0.006 and p = 0.0005). Skin roughness: significant increase after wearing MCS (p = 0.0015 and p = 0.010), and nonsignificant decrease of skin roughness after wearing MCS-SkC (p = 0.933 and p = 0.4570). Leg volume: significantly reduced with both stockings (p = 0.004 and p = 0.0047). Regarding stasis-induced complaints, both stockings achieved good results. CONCLUSIONS: Both compression stockings are appropriate to reduce leg edema and minimize leg symptoms. MCS-SkC helps to obtain the natural skin barrier function in preserving the epidermal water content and reducing the TEWL.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although compression therapy is a very effective therapy in reducing stasis-induced complaints, the wearing comfort is not always as requested. Most frequent problems are dryness of the skin and itching. This randomized, cross-over trial investigated 33 healthy participants and compared 2 different medical compression stockings: conventional stockings (type A = MCS) versus compression stockings with integrated care emulsion (type B = MCS-SkC). METHODS:Participants were divided into 2 cohorts. Both compression types were worn one after the other, 1 week each. The cohorts were named according to the sequence of the wearing periods (cohort AB/BA). PRIMARY OUTCOME: skin hydration. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: transepidermal water loss (TEWL), skin roughness, leg volume, interface pressure, and questionnaires about stasis-induced complaints and wearing comfort. RESULTS: Skin hydration: significant reduction after wearing MCS in both cohorts (p < 0.001); preservation of skin moisture after wearing MCS-SkC (p = 0.546 and p = 0.1631). TEWL: significant increase after wearing MCS (p = 0.007 and p = 0.0031); significant reduction by wearing MCS-SkC (p = 0.006 and p = 0.0005). Skin roughness: significant increase after wearing MCS (p = 0.0015 and p = 0.010), and nonsignificant decrease of skin roughness after wearing MCS-SkC (p = 0.933 and p = 0.4570). Leg volume: significantly reduced with both stockings (p = 0.004 and p = 0.0047). Regarding stasis-induced complaints, both stockings achieved good results. CONCLUSIONS: Both compression stockings are appropriate to reduce leg edema and minimize leg symptoms. MCS-SkC helps to obtain the natural skin barrier function in preserving the epidermal water content and reducing the TEWL.