Comparison between the portable pressure measuring device and PicoPress® for garment pressure measurement on hypertrophic burn scar during compression therapy.

PURPOSE

The current standard treatment for hypertrophic scars following burn injury is pressure garment therapy. The experimenters developed the novel portable pressure measuring device using silicon piezoresistive sensors. As PicoPress® is the most accurate (i.e., lowest variation and error) manometric sensor for pressure measurement, we sought to compare and examine the accuracy of the novel device regarding in vitro pressure measurements at the hypertrophic scar-pressure garment interface.

METHODS

The novel device was designed to operate in non-corrosive media, such as air. The device can use up to six pressure sensing points and was developed to adjust the number of pressure sensors according to the size of the scar. Pressure measurements were acquired through a readout circuit consisting of an analog-to-digital converter, a microprocessor, and a Bluetooth transmission module for wireless data transmission to an external device. All signals were converted into mean pressure expressed in millimeters of mercury (mmHg). The mean pressure values measured by the sensors were compared to those obtained from PicoPress®. 55 garment pressures recordings were obtained from the sensors over this study conducted in 2018-February 2020. We then analyzed the test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). PicoPress® was also employed in the same pressure garments for obtaining similar measurements. A two way random effects model ICC with 95% confidence intervals was used to compare the mean pressure values obtained from the silicon piezoresistive sensors to the PicoPress® measurements.

RESULTS

The test-retest reliability of the pressure sensors was close to the acceptable level for clinical use regarding stationary interface pressure measurement (ICC = 0.99, 95% CI 0.990-0.997). The mean pressure obtained from the silicon piezoresistive pressure sensors showed an accordance with the measurements from PicoPress® (ICC = 0.97, 95% CI 0.947-0.985).

CONCLUSION

The novel device may present a viable alternative to PicoPress® for garment pressure measurements. In addition, the novel device improves adaptability to the hypertrophic scar shape and size. Complementary characteristics such as wireless transmission to an external device may allow burn patients to continuously wear the device for real-time measurements during pressure garment therapy, thus improving existing devices including PicoPress®.