A prospective pilot study: In vivo stiffness comparison of light-elastic and strong-elastic off-the-shelf medical compression stockings

Le résumé fourni par la source

BackgroundStiffness is an independent determinant of compression therapy efficacy, beyond compression pressure alone. Three indices - static stiffness index (SSI), dynamic stiffness index (DSI), and walking pressure amplitude (WPA) - quantify stiffness. This study evaluated in vivo stiffness in eight compression stocking models to assess whether those marketed as "strong-elastic" differ significantly from those marketed as "light-elastic".MethodsIn a prospective, open-label pilot study, 10 healthy participants were each fitted with eight off-the-shelf AG II compression stocking models (4 "strong-elastic", 4 "light-elastic"). Continuous pressure monitoring was conducted at four standardized anatomical sites (B, B1, C, D) of the right lower extremity using the Picopress® system. A total of 320 measurement cycles were completed. Data were analyzed by comparing grouped results for "strong" vs. "elastic" stockings.ResultsThe SSI did not differ significantly between "strong-elastic" (stMCS) and "light-elastic" (elMCS) stockings at any site (p > .05). However, stMCS showed significantly higher DSI at sites B (4.55 ± 2.00 mmHg vs 3.90 ± 1.63 mmHg; p = .028), C (5.83 ± 2.28 mmHg vs 5.10 ± 1.82 mmHg; p = .015), and D (2.33 ± 1.16 mmHg vs 1.58 ± 0.87 mmHg; p < .001). For WPA, stMCS exhibited significantly higher stiffness at B1 (6.75 ± 2.26 mmHg vs 6.03 ± 2.27 mmHg; p = .018), C (4.33 ± 2.31 mmHg vs 3.73 ± 2.24 mmHg; p = .020), and D (6.25 ± 2.07 mmHg vs 4.23 ± 1.59 mmHg; p < .001). Mean lower leg circumference increased from 0.50 cm (D) to 1.05 cm (C), depending on movement.ConclusionAt B1, no significant differences in SSI or DSI were found between "strong-elastic" and "light-elastic" stockings, whereas WPA significantly differentiated both groups. Overall stiffness values exceeded previous reports, indicating both stMCS and elMCS possess substantial stiffness and likely improve venous hemodynamics.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.