RESEARCH ARTICLE
Measurements of the Exerted Pressure by Pelvic Circumferential Compression Devices
Simon P. Knops1, Marcel P.J.M. van Riel2, Richard H.M. Goossens3, Esther M.M. van Lieshout*, 1, Peter Patka1, Inger B. Schipper§, 1
Article Information
Identifiers and Pagination:
Year: 2010Volume: 4
First Page: 101
Last Page: 106
Publisher ID: TOORTHJ-4-101
DOI: 10.2174/1874325001004010101
Article History:
Received Date: 16/11/2009Revision Received Date: 5/12/2009
Acceptance Date: 30/12/2009
Electronic publication date: 17/2/2010
Collection year: 2010
open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/) which permits unrestrictive use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Background:
Data on the efficacy and safety of non-invasive Pelvic Circumferential Compression Devices (PCCDs) is limited. Tissue damage may occur if a continuous pressure on the skin exceeding 9.3 kPa is sustained for more than two or three hours. The aim of this study was to gain insight into the pressure build-up at the interface, by measuring the PCCD-induced pressure when applying pulling forces to three different PCCDs (Pelvic Binder®, SAM-Sling® and T-POD®) in a simplified model.
Methods:
The resulting exerted pressures were measured at four ‘anatomical’ locations (right, left, posterior and anterior) in a model using a pressure measurement system consisting of pressure cuffs.
Results:
The exerted pressure varied substantially between the locations as well as between the PCCDs. Maximum pressures ranged from 18.9-23.3 kPa and from 19.2-27.5 kPa at the right location and left location, respectively. Pressures at the posterior location stayed below 18 kPa. At the anterior location pressures varied markedly between the different PCCDs.
Conclusion:
The circmferential compression by the different PCCDs showed high pressures measured at the four locations using a simplified model. Difference in design and functional characteristics of the PCCDs resulted in different pressure build-up at the four locations. When following the manufacturer’s instructions, the exerted pressure of all three PCCDs tested exceeded the tissue damaging level (9.3 kPa). In case of prolonged use in a clinical situation this might put patients at risk for developing tissue damage.
