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.