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
1 Department of Surgery-Traumatology, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
2 Neuroscience, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
3 Department of Industrial Design Engineering, section Applied Ergonomics and Design, Technical University Delft, Delft, The Netherlands


Article Metrics

CrossRef Citations:
1
Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 548
Abstract HTML Views: 188
PDF Downloads: 140
Total Views/Downloads: 876
Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 286
Abstract HTML Views: 110
PDF Downloads: 107
Total Views/Downloads: 503



Creative Commons License
© Knops et al.; Licensee Bentham Open.

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.

* Address correspondence to this author at the Department of Surgery-Traumatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Tel: +31-10-7031050; Fax: +31-10-7032396; E-mail: e.vanlieshout@erasmusmc.nl
§ Current Address: Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands


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.

Keywords: Pelvic circumferential compression device, PCCD, non-invasive, pressure measurement.