3.9 Article

Development of a Pressure-Measuring Device to Optimize Compression Treatment of Lymphedema and Evaluation of Change in Garment Pressure with Simulated Wear and Tear

期刊

LYMPHATIC RESEARCH AND BIOLOGY
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 74-80

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/lrb.2012.0003

关键词

-

资金

  1. Tegger Foundation
  2. Swedish Society of Medicine
  3. Lundgren Foundation
  4. Swedish Cancer Society
  5. Foundation Against Cancer at Malmo University Hospital
  6. Thureus Foundation at Uppsala University
  7. Royal Physiographic Society in Lund
  8. Skane County Council's Research and Development Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of compression garments in treating lymphedema following treatment of genital (penis, testes, uterus, cervical) and breast cancer treatment is a well-established practice. Although compression garments are classified in compression classes, little is known about the actual subgarment pressure exerted along the extremity. The aims of this study were to establish an in vitro method for measuring subgarment pressure along the extremity and to analyze initial and over time subgarment pressure of compression garments from three manufacturers. The measurements were performed with I-scan (R) (Tekscan Inc.) pressure measuring equipment once a week during a period of 4 weeks. Wear and tear was simulated by washing and putting on the garments on plastic legs every day. There was a statistically significant difference between the garments of some of manufacturers. There was no difference between garments from the same manufacturer. No significant decrease of subgarment pressure was observed during the trial period. The study demonstrated that Tekscan pressure-measuring equipment could measure subgarment pressure in vitro. The results may indicate that there was a difference in subgarment pressure exerted by garments from different manufacturers and that there was no clear decrease in subgarment pressure during the first four weeks of usage.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据