[Compression devices for decongestion therapy : A cross-sectional observational survey of handling, pressure, and comfort].

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVES

This cross-sectional observational survey examines the handling of the treatment options: short-stretch bandages with padding, multicomponent compression systems, and adaptive compression bandages.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.