Laboratory Research
The application of compression bandages is inherently variable based on technique, the experience of the operator, overlap, applied tension and properties of the bandage.
Under IRB approval, this study assessed the nurse’s ability to reach a target compression of 40mmHg by applying two different compression systems. The first is a well-known Traditional Two Layer Bandage (TLB*) compression system and a novel Dual Compression System, DCS* incorporating a pressure guide.
Methods:
Skilled nurses applied the compression bandages to the lower legs of six healthy volunteers five times. The study was repeated on one of the nurses after re-training in person. The pressure generated by the bandage was measured at rest and standing, 10 cm above the medial malleolus of the ankle.
The consistency and proximity to target pressure were calculated with comparisons between nurses, subjects, position, and compression system. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for statistical analysis (p < 0.05). Also, T-statistic was used to estimating the closeness to the target pressure of 40mmHg.
Results:
After re-training, DCS* had an average value of 40±2 mmHg and TLB* had 36±2 mmHg for resting and standing positions combined. The average value for DCS* was not significantly different from the target pressure with a p-value of 0.89, on the contrary, the average for TBL* was significantly different from the target (p < 0.05). In total, DCS* obtained 38% of the values in the ranges of 40±5 mmHg, and TBL* obtained 30% in the target range.
Discussion:
Successful bandaging to 40mmHg is operator dependent in the sense that the operator has taken the training properly. One of the nurses had extensive experience using TLB* and achieved higher values with DCS*, after re-training the nurse improved the values with DCS*. The other nurses who did not have experience with either system performed better with DCS*. Taken together, the results show that the pressure guide for the DCS* does allow a more accurate application of target pressure than a system without such visual indicators. Additional sampling should be conducted to further confirm the observations we found in this study.
Trademarked Items: Dual Compression System (DCS*) = Urgo K2
Traditional Two Layer Bandage (TLB*) = Coban 2
References: Partsch, H., & Mortimer, P. (2015). Compression for leg wounds. British Journal of Dermatology, 173(2), 359-369.
Mosti, G., Iabichella, M. L., & Partsch, H. (2012). Compression therapy in mixed ulcers increases venous output and arterial perfusion. Journal of vascular surgery, 55(1), 122-128.
Hanna, R., Bohbot, S., & Connolly, N. (2008). A comparison of inferface pressures of three compression bandage systems. British Journal of Nursing, 17(Sup9), S16-S24.
Benigni, J. P., Lazareth, I., Parpex, P., Gerard, J. L., Alves, M., Vin, F., ... & Bohbot, S. (2007). Efficacy, safety and acceptability of a new two-layer bandage system for venous leg ulcers. Journal of wound care, 16(9), 385-390.
Jünger, M., Ladwig, A., Bohbot, S., & Haase, H. (2009). Comparison of interface pressures of three compression bandaging systems used on healthy. journal of wound care, 18(11), 474-480.
Lazareth, I., Moffatt, C., Dissemond, J., Padieu, A. L., Truchetet, F., Beissert, S., ... & Meaume, S. (2012). Efficacy of two compression systems in the management of VLUs: results of a European RCT. journal of wound care, 21(11), 553-565.
Partsch, H. (2005). The use of pressure change on standing as a surrogate measure of the stiffness of a compression bandage. European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery, 30(4), 415-421.
Garrigues-Ramón, M., Julián, M., Zaragoza, C., & Barrios, C. (2021). Inability of Laplace's law to estimate sub-bandage pressures after applying a compressive bandage: a clinical study. Journal of Wound Care, 30(4), 276-282.