Protz K, Reich-Schupke S, Klose K, Augustin M, Heyer K
Comprehensive Wound Center (CWC), Institut für Versorgungsforschung in der Dermatologie und bei Pflegeberufen (IVDP), Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistr. 52, Bethanien-Höfe Eppendorf, 20246, Hamburg, Deutschland.
Klinik für Dermatologie, Venerologie und Allergologie, Venenzentrum der Dermatologischen und Gefäßchirurgischen Kliniken, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Deutschland.
Hautarzt. 2018 Mar;69(3):232-241. doi: 10.1007/s00105-017-4084-3.
If compression bandaging is not performed in a professional manner, the objectives of the therapy may not be achieved and side effects or complications may result.
This cross-sectional observational survey examines the handling of the treatment options: short-stretch bandages with padding, multicomponent compression systems, and adaptive compression bandages.
During several training sessions on the topic of compression therapy, 137 participants performed compression bandagings on each other. In this regard, they were asked to achieve a predetermined pressure range (short-stretch bandages: 50-60 mm Hg, multicomponent compression systems: 40-50 mm Hg, adaptive compression bandage: 35-45 mm Hg). To evaluate the efficiency, the time used for application, the achieved pressure value, and the comfort were determined.
Of the 302 bandagings (n = 137 participants), 28.4% lay within the given target pressure value range. This included 11.2% of performed short-stretch bandages, 35.2% of multicomponent compression systems, and 85.0% of adaptive compression bandages. Significant differences in the mean deviations are found between the treatment options. The bandage was described as being comfortable by 37.7% of users of short-stretch bandages with padding, by 65.0% of those wearing a multicomponent compression system, and by 94.6% of participants with an adaptive compression bandage.
In practice, short-stretch bandages are still the most frequently used care option for the creation of a phlebological compression bandage. In this survey, they proved to be unsafe, time-consuming, and uncomfortable in relation to other treatment options. Multicomponent compression systems and adaptive compression bandages are treatment options that may be a contemporary alternative which also bares more comfort for the patient.
如果加压包扎未以专业方式进行，可能无法实现治疗目标，还可能导致副作用或并发症。
这项横断面观察性调查研究了以下治疗方法的操作情况：带衬垫的短拉伸绷带、多组件加压系统和自适应加压绷带。
在几次关于加压治疗主题的培训课程中，137名参与者相互进行加压包扎。在此过程中，要求他们达到预定的压力范围（短拉伸绷带：50 - 60毫米汞柱，多组件加压系统：40 - 50毫米汞柱，自适应加压绷带：35 - 45毫米汞柱）。为评估效率，测定了包扎所用时间、达到的压力值和舒适度。
在302次包扎（n = 137名参与者）中，28.4%处于给定的目标压力值范围内。其中包括11.2%的短拉伸绷带包扎、35.2%的多组件加压系统包扎和85.0%的自适应加压绷带包扎。不同治疗方法之间的平均偏差存在显著差异。37.7%使用带衬垫短拉伸绷带的使用者、65.0%佩戴多组件加压系统的使用者以及94.6%使用自适应加压绷带的参与者表示绷带佩戴舒适。
在实践中，短拉伸绷带仍是创建静脉学加压绷带最常用的护理方法。在本次调查中，与其他治疗方法相比，它被证明不安全、耗时且不舒适。多组件加压系统和自适应加压绷带是可能成为当代替代方法的治疗选择，且能为患者带来更多舒适感。
