Jünger M, Ladwig A, Bohbot S, Haase H
Department of Dermatology, University Hospital of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
J Wound Care. 2009 Nov;18(11):474, 476-80. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2009.18.11.45000.
To compare changes in interface pressures of three compression systems (four layer, two layer and short stretch) recorded over seven days in healthy volunteers in different positions: supine, sitting, active standing and working pressure during exercise.
Twenty-four volunteers were bandaged with one of the three compression systems on both legs. Interface pressures were measured at inclusion (day 0) and on days 1, 3 and 7 using an air sensor system, with the sensor placed in the medial B1 position above the inner ankle. In addition, the volume of the lower legs were also measured on days 0 and 7 using a three-dimensional imaging system. Comfort and tolerability were also assessed.
The performance, based on the loss of interface pressure compared with baseline, of the two-layer system was partially better than that of the short-stretch system for maximal working pressure and loss of volume. The two-layer system and short-stretch system had similar results for the supine, sitting and active standing positions. No difference was observed between the two-layer system and the four-layer system for the maximal working pressure. However, the two-layer system compared better than the two other systems for comfort and tolerability: 25% of the patients treated with the four-layer system discontinued the treatment after three days because of pain.
The two-layer bandage system maintained, over one week, a similar level of sub-bandage pressure similar to a four-layer system and was partially better than short-stretch bandaging. However, the volunteers found the two-layer system more comfortable and tolerable than the other two systems.
The investigators received an education grant from Urgo for the study. However, Urgo had no influence on the data analysis or interpretation.
比较三种加压系统（四层、两层和短拉伸）在健康志愿者不同体位（仰卧位、坐位、主动站立位和运动时的工作压力）下记录的七天内界面压力变化。
24名志愿者双腿均用三种加压系统之一进行包扎。在纳入时（第0天）以及第1、3和7天，使用空气传感器系统测量界面压力，传感器置于内踝上方的内侧B1位置。此外，在第0天和第7天还使用三维成像系统测量小腿体积。同时评估舒适度和耐受性。
基于与基线相比界面压力的损失，在最大工作压力和体积损失方面，两层系统的性能部分优于短拉伸系统。两层系统和短拉伸系统在仰卧位、坐位和主动站立位的结果相似。两层系统和四层系统在最大工作压力方面未观察到差异。然而，在舒适度和耐受性方面，两层系统比其他两个系统表现更好：25%接受四层系统治疗的患者在三天后因疼痛而停止治疗。
两层绷带系统在一周内维持了与四层系统相似水平的绷带下压力，且部分优于短拉伸绷带。然而，志愿者发现两层系统比其他两个系统更舒适且耐受性更好。
研究人员获得了Urgo公司提供的研究教育资助。然而，Urgo公司对数据分析或解释没有影响。
