Effect of elasticity on subbandage pressure of three layer tubular compression bandages in healthy volunteers: a RCT.
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the difference between mean interface sub-bandage pressures of two multilayer compression bandage systems in healthy volunteers when supine, standing, exercising and during recovery.


METHODS
Inelastic and elastic compression bandages were randomised to opposite limbs of each participant. Sub-bandage interface pressures for both bandages were compared within person. Participants and study staff were aware of the treatment. A pressure transducer measured sub-bandage pressures on the medial aspect of the lower leg, at the transition of the gastrocnemius muscle into the Achilles tendon (B1). The difference in interface pressure for the two different compression bandages was measured at level B1 during supine resting, standing, exercise and recovery. We defined the pressure difference between active standing and lying as a measure of stiffness, and amplitude as the range of pressures during plantar flexion while standing. The two bandage systems (inelastic and elastic) were applied from the base of the toes to just below knee and remained in place for the duration of the experiment. Elastic bandage consisted of three layers of graduated tubular bandage (83% cotton, 9% Lycra, 8% polyamide). Inelastic or short-stretch bandage consisted of 100% cotton crepe bandage.


RESULTS
Interface sub-bandage pressures varied during different activities, but the mean difference in interface pressures between inelastic and elastic bandages was consistently at least 13 mm Hg. Stiffness was 7.3 mm Hg higher in the inelastic group (95% CI 5.1-9.5). The estimated difference in amplitude of sub-bandage pressure between the bandages during exercise was 15.5 mm Hg (95% CI 12.2-18.9).


CONCLUSIONS
We found in vivo interface sub-bandage pressures varied with the type of bandage and activity phase. Inelastic bandages resulted in an increased mean interface sub-bandage pressure when resting and recovering, which was further increased when standing or exercising. Bandage stiffness and amplitude were also greater for inelastic compared with elastic bandages.


BACKGROUND
None.
Weller
C
C
Monash University School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Melbourne, Australia. Carolina.Weller@monash.edu
Jolley
D
D
Wolfe
R
R
Myers
K
K
McNeil
J
J
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D004548:Elasticity / Q000502:physiology; D004867:Equipment Design; D015444:Exercise / Q000502:physiology; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008422:Materials Testing; D008875:Middle Aged; D011312:Pressure / Q000009:adverse effects; D012146:Rest / Q000502:physiology; D012727:Sex Characteristics; D053828:Stockings, Compression / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000592:standards*; D016683:Supine Position / Q000502:physiology