• Yung-Wei Chi, Kuo-Hao Tseng, Ruya Li, and Tingrui Pan.
• 1 University of California, Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA, USA.
• Phlebology. 2018 Jun 1; 33 (5): 315-320.

AbstractObjective Interface pressure, the sine qua non for compression therapy, is rarely measured in clinical practice and scientific research. The goal of this study aimed to compare and examine the accuracy between a commercially available piezoresistive sensor and PicoPress® (Microlab, Padua, Italy) using the cylinder cuff model to measure in-vitro interface pressure. Method Ten piezoresistive sensors were calibrated using the National Institute of Standard and Technology certified manometer, and compared to PicoPress® using cylinder cuff model from 20 to 120 mmHg. Two statistical analyses were performed: (a) two-sample t-test to compare the front to back surface of the piezoresistive sensors using mean pressure value and (b) one-sample paired t-test to compare the front and back surface of the piezoresistive sensors to PicoPress® and true pressure using mean pressure value. Result There was no difference in interface pressure measurement between the front and back surface of the piezoresistive sensors (P > 0.05). Using mean pressure value, there was no significant difference between the front surface, back surface of the piezoresistive sensors, and PicoPress® (P > 0.05). Standard deviation was larger for the piezoresistive sensors than PicoPress® at any given pressure and this difference was more pronounced in the higher pressure range. Conclusion Piezoresistive sensor may represent a viable alternative to PicoPress® in interface pressure measurement.

18 keywords...

hide…