纺织成分,而不是层数,影响间期压力和静态刚度指数:7种不同的2层粘结性绷带包在健康志愿者体内的间期压力的实用对比分析。

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 DERMATOLOGY
S. Ehmann, Albert E. Ortega, H. Hettrick
{"title":"纺织成分,而不是层数,影响间期压力和静态刚度指数:7种不同的2层粘结性绷带包在健康志愿者体内的间期压力的实用对比分析。","authors":"S. Ehmann, Albert E. Ortega, H. Hettrick","doi":"10.25270/wmp.2023.2.22072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\"OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to comparatively evaluate the in vivo interphase pressure (IP) and statis stiffness index (SSI), upon initial application, of 7, 2-layer cohesive bandage kits when applied on healthy volunteers.\n\n\nMETHOD\nBandages were applied in random order, on non-consecutive days by a single experienced clinician. The IP at the time of application was measured on the right lower limb of 10 healthy volunteers at 2 different points (B1, C). Measurements were made in 2 positions, supine and standing. There were 2 consecutive applications and measurements made for each compression bandage set. Statistical analysis of the outcome data was performed, utilizing a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine: the effects of the bandage type on IP and SSI for each of the measurement points and according to the subject's position. Post hoc analyses were performed by Tukey and Bonferroni test to identify significant differences. The dispersion of the recorded pressures within the study population (dispersion between subjects) was assessed by the coefficient of variations.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe in vivo IP measured at B1 in the supine position varied from 50.1 mmHg (±5.3) to 73.7 mmHg (±13.4). The in vivo IP measured at C in the supine position varied from 53.2 mmHg (±7.6) to 69.3 mmHg (±10.6). Bonferroni post hoc analyses demonstrated with a 95% confidence interval, there was a significant difference between wraps and placed them into 5 groups for the IP measured at B1, and 3 groups for measurements taken at C. A regression model including the main effects of the wrap and the subject with their interaction were similar for the IP observed at B1 and C in the supine position (r2 = 0.881). The in vivo SSI measured at B1 varied from 11.95 (±5.4) to 6.65 (±4.4). Post hoc analyses similarly demonstrated significant differences placing the wraps into 3 different groups. Statistical analysis of the variability of the IP observed at B1 and C showed there was a significant difference at B1 (P = .001), which was not observed at C (P = .347).\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nSub-bandage pressure measurements produced by the 7, '2-layer cohesive' compression box sets were not equivocal. IP and SSI varied by textile composition, clinically supporting the trial of alternative '2-layer cohesive' compression box set if the desired outcome (ie, wound healing, edema reduction) is not achieved. Additional study in patients with edema is warranted to allow an evidenced-based approached to the selection of a compression bandage set.","PeriodicalId":23741,"journal":{"name":"Wound management & prevention","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Textile composition, not number of layers, impacts interphase pressure and static stiffness index: A pragmatic, comparative analysis of the in vivo interphase pressure of 7 different 2-layer cohesive bandage kits in healthy volunteers.\",\"authors\":\"S. Ehmann, Albert E. Ortega, H. Hettrick\",\"doi\":\"10.25270/wmp.2023.2.22072\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\\"OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to comparatively evaluate the in vivo interphase pressure (IP) and statis stiffness index (SSI), upon initial application, of 7, 2-layer cohesive bandage kits when applied on healthy volunteers.\\n\\n\\nMETHOD\\nBandages were applied in random order, on non-consecutive days by a single experienced clinician. The IP at the time of application was measured on the right lower limb of 10 healthy volunteers at 2 different points (B1, C). Measurements were made in 2 positions, supine and standing. There were 2 consecutive applications and measurements made for each compression bandage set. Statistical analysis of the outcome data was performed, utilizing a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine: the effects of the bandage type on IP and SSI for each of the measurement points and according to the subject's position. Post hoc analyses were performed by Tukey and Bonferroni test to identify significant differences. The dispersion of the recorded pressures within the study population (dispersion between subjects) was assessed by the coefficient of variations.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nThe in vivo IP measured at B1 in the supine position varied from 50.1 mmHg (±5.3) to 73.7 mmHg (±13.4). The in vivo IP measured at C in the supine position varied from 53.2 mmHg (±7.6) to 69.3 mmHg (±10.6). Bonferroni post hoc analyses demonstrated with a 95% confidence interval, there was a significant difference between wraps and placed them into 5 groups for the IP measured at B1, and 3 groups for measurements taken at C. A regression model including the main effects of the wrap and the subject with their interaction were similar for the IP observed at B1 and C in the supine position (r2 = 0.881). The in vivo SSI measured at B1 varied from 11.95 (±5.4) to 6.65 (±4.4). Post hoc analyses similarly demonstrated significant differences placing the wraps into 3 different groups. Statistical analysis of the variability of the IP observed at B1 and C showed there was a significant difference at B1 (P = .001), which was not observed at C (P = .347).\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSION\\nSub-bandage pressure measurements produced by the 7, '2-layer cohesive' compression box sets were not equivocal. IP and SSI varied by textile composition, clinically supporting the trial of alternative '2-layer cohesive' compression box set if the desired outcome (ie, wound healing, edema reduction) is not achieved. Additional study in patients with edema is warranted to allow an evidenced-based approached to the selection of a compression bandage set.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23741,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wound management & prevention\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wound management & prevention\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25270/wmp.2023.2.22072\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DERMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wound management & prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25270/wmp.2023.2.22072","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是比较评估体内相间压(IP)和统计硬度指数(SSI)初次使用时,在健康志愿者身上使用7,2层粘性绷带包。方法由一名经验丰富的临床医生在非连续的几天内随机使用绷带。在2个不同点(B1、C)对10名健康志愿者的右下肢测量应用时的IP。测量采用仰卧和站立两种姿势。对每个压缩绷带组进行2次连续应用和测量。利用重复测量方差分析(ANOVA)对结果数据进行统计分析,以确定绷带类型对每个测量点的IP和SSI的影响,并根据受试者的位置。通过Tukey和Bonferroni检验进行事后分析,以确定显著差异。记录的压力在研究人群中的分散性(受试者之间的分散性)通过变异系数进行评估。结果仰卧位B1处测得的体内IP在50.1 mmHg(±5.3)至73.7 mmHg(?3.4)之间变化。仰卧位C处测得体内IP在53.2 mmHg(士7.6)至69.3 mmHg(徒10.6)之间变化,和3组用于在C。包括包裹物和受试者的主要影响及其相互作用的回归模型在仰卧位B1和C处观察到的IP相似(r2=0.881)。在B1处测量到的体内SSI在11.95(±5.4)到6.65(±4.4)之间变化。事后分析同样表明,将包裹物分为3组存在显著差异。对B1和C处观察到的IP变异性的统计分析显示,B1处存在显著差异(P=0.001),而C处没有观察到(P=.347)。结论7个“2层粘性”压缩盒组产生的子绷带压力测量结果并非模棱两可。IP和SSI因织物成分而异,临床上支持在未达到预期结果(即伤口愈合、水肿减轻)的情况下进行替代性“2层粘性”压缩箱定型试验。有必要对水肿患者进行额外的研究,以便对压缩绷带的选择进行基于证据的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Textile composition, not number of layers, impacts interphase pressure and static stiffness index: A pragmatic, comparative analysis of the in vivo interphase pressure of 7 different 2-layer cohesive bandage kits in healthy volunteers.
"OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to comparatively evaluate the in vivo interphase pressure (IP) and statis stiffness index (SSI), upon initial application, of 7, 2-layer cohesive bandage kits when applied on healthy volunteers. METHOD Bandages were applied in random order, on non-consecutive days by a single experienced clinician. The IP at the time of application was measured on the right lower limb of 10 healthy volunteers at 2 different points (B1, C). Measurements were made in 2 positions, supine and standing. There were 2 consecutive applications and measurements made for each compression bandage set. Statistical analysis of the outcome data was performed, utilizing a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine: the effects of the bandage type on IP and SSI for each of the measurement points and according to the subject's position. Post hoc analyses were performed by Tukey and Bonferroni test to identify significant differences. The dispersion of the recorded pressures within the study population (dispersion between subjects) was assessed by the coefficient of variations. RESULTS The in vivo IP measured at B1 in the supine position varied from 50.1 mmHg (±5.3) to 73.7 mmHg (±13.4). The in vivo IP measured at C in the supine position varied from 53.2 mmHg (±7.6) to 69.3 mmHg (±10.6). Bonferroni post hoc analyses demonstrated with a 95% confidence interval, there was a significant difference between wraps and placed them into 5 groups for the IP measured at B1, and 3 groups for measurements taken at C. A regression model including the main effects of the wrap and the subject with their interaction were similar for the IP observed at B1 and C in the supine position (r2 = 0.881). The in vivo SSI measured at B1 varied from 11.95 (±5.4) to 6.65 (±4.4). Post hoc analyses similarly demonstrated significant differences placing the wraps into 3 different groups. Statistical analysis of the variability of the IP observed at B1 and C showed there was a significant difference at B1 (P = .001), which was not observed at C (P = .347). CONCLUSION Sub-bandage pressure measurements produced by the 7, '2-layer cohesive' compression box sets were not equivocal. IP and SSI varied by textile composition, clinically supporting the trial of alternative '2-layer cohesive' compression box set if the desired outcome (ie, wound healing, edema reduction) is not achieved. Additional study in patients with edema is warranted to allow an evidenced-based approached to the selection of a compression bandage set.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Wound management & prevention
Wound management & prevention Nursing-Medical and Surgical Nursing
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Information not localized
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信