1. bookAHEAD OF PRINT
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
19 Oct 2012
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Comparative Study of Long- and Short-Stretch Woven Compression Bandages

Published Online: 24 Oct 2020
Page range: -
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
19 Oct 2012
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

Compression therapy using bandages or socks is the most common treatment for venous leg ulcers and edema. This article aims to compare the compression between long- and short-stretch bandages (LSB and SSB, respectively). Load-elongation curves, cyclic loading, and elastic recovery are investigated for both Cotton/Polyamide/Polyurethane and 100% bleached cotton bandages as LSB and SSB, respectively. Static (resting) and dynamic (working) pressures are measured on seven male legs, 31 ± 3.6 years old, using both two and three layers bandaging. Picopress pressure tests are performed on the ankle and mid-calf positions at gradual decreasing compression from the ankle to the knee. The deviation percentage between the experimental results by Picopress and theoretical calculations using Laplace's law and Al-Khaburi equations is compared. LSB recovered approximately 99% of its original length after stress-relaxation whereas SSB recovered only 93% of its original length after 5 days of cyclic load-relaxation. Moreover, SSB lost approximately 28.6% of its activity after wearing on the human leg for 5 days.

Keywords

Introduction
Definition and application of long and short-stretch compression bandages

Long-stretch bandage (LSB) can be defined as “an elastic compression bandage (CB) that contains elastic filament (rubber, Lycra, or elastane) which allows the bandage to stretch more than 120% of its original length”; it can be applied smoothly and conformed according to the contour of the human leg. According to the level of compression applied by the LSB, it might be essential to take it off at night because the resting (static) pressure when sleeping is annoying. Short-stretch bandage (SSB) can be defined as “elastic CB, however, is composed of cotton yarns, but usually it's highly twisted yarns (1,200–2,300 turns/m) [1], these yarns are interwoven to enable the bandage's original length to be extended by almost 60–70% during application.” The main advantage of these short-stretch compression bandages (CBs) is that they achieve high working pressure which is necessary for lymphatic drainage and venous flow [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].

Static Stiffness Index (SSI) is defined as the difference between the interface pressures when someone is standing or lying (mmHg) divided by 1 cm. LSB has a value of SSI < 10 while SSB has a value of SSI > 10. The pressure peaks at walking action are slightly higher than for standing conditions [8].

Production methods and structures of long and short-stretch CBs

The main function of SSB is to provide graduated pressure on the lower limb decreasing from the ankle to the knee to improve venous return, accelerate the venous flow, reduce venous reflux by realignment of valves, improve venous pump action, and reduce edema [8, 9]. On the other hand, LSB is not suitable for lymphedema management because it has low working pressure. This low pressure does not offer adequate resistance, and fluid would inevitably accumulate. In addition, the high resting pressure of LSB could constrict veins and lymph vessels during rest or sleep [10]. There are three methods for producing woven compression bandages (WCBs) to achieve the optimum stretch. The first method is using highly twisted warp yarns and the resultant bandage in this case is SSB. The second method is elastane (Polyurethane) filament with Viscose (VI) or Cotton (CO) to produce LSB. The third method is two polymeric yarns with different melting points by steaming and heat setting; usually, it is SSB [1, 11, 12].

Advantages of long and short-stretch CBs

Short-stretch CBs are made using stiff materials that enable them to achieve the optimum balance between working and resting pressures. They create high working pressure on the ankle and calf muscles due to the interaction between the lower leg and CB during any activity or walking action. This SSB compresses the muscles by irregular intervals, oscillating between high and low pressures. The resultant oscillations form an internal pumping action that shifts fluid out of the tissues and returns to the vessels of the lymphatic system. Moreover, it achieves low resting pressure on relaxed muscles, static state, or sleeping. This low resting pressure, when the muscles are inactive, enables reducing the spaces in tissues where fluid can leak in that means they could be worn day and night and are tolerated well by the patient [13, 14].

Wearing LSB increased pressure by 8 mmHg for standing position, while using SSB had a significant increase by 25 mmHg and higher working pressure [15]. Two studies found that SSB is superior in healing venous ulcers and reducing venous reflux over LSB [16, 17]. Moreover, some others proved that short-stretch and Unna's boot were found to support the pump function better than long-stretch CBs (evidence level A) [18, PolignanoR.BoneadoP.GasbarroS.AllegraC.2004A randomised controlled study of four-layer compression versus Unna's Boot for venous ulcersJournal of Wound Care1312124' href="#j_aut-2020-0035_ref_019_w2aab3b7b1b1b6b1ab2b1c19Aa">19]. LSB can sustain its pressure up to 1 week due to its ability to accommodate changes in the shape and movement of the limb. SSB can be effective for 2–3 days because of a significant reduction in edema. When the patient is mobile, SSB is more effective because of the calf muscle contracts against the wrap which forces blood toward the heart. Patients with mixed arterial/venous insufficiency can better tolerate SSB because it has lower resting pressure [20, 21]. SSB tends to generate lower resting pressures but the pressure increases with walking due to calf muscle expansion. It is therefore ideal for mobile patients. SSB should be reapplied once edema has improved. Increased layers not only augment the pressure applied but also tend to render the compression less elastic [22].

Few studies focused on the optimization and best combinations of CBs for venous leg ulcers, edema healing, and prevention of recurrence. Most patients depend on specialist practitioners or traditional experience. The motivation of this research is to investigate the optimum conditions for compression therapy using long- and short-stretch WCBs. The methodology is based on evaluating the elastic recovery of both bandages during cyclic loading-unloading to simulate the real activities of the patient or athletic performance during rest and walking.

Experimental work
Materials

Cotton/Polyamide/Polyurethane (CO-PA-PU) and 100% bleached Cotton WCBs were selected to represent long- and short-stretch WCBs, respectively, meanwhile the mechanical and bandage pressure properties were tested and compared. The planar structures of selected WCBs are illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 1

Structure of woven bandages based on the plain weave and elastane [11].

Figure 2

Double weft fabric structure based on Twill weave 1/3, highly twisted warp yarns [12].

Figure 3

Long- and short-stretch-woven compression bandages parameters.

Testing procedure
Load-elongation test for Cotton SSB and CO-PA-PU LSB

The Stress-relaxation test has a priority during the WCB application to create the optimum pressure on the patient leg during the whole treatment period. Cyclic loading-unloading of WCB is investigated based on the standard test method ISO 13934-1:1999(E) [23, 24]. Testometric M350-5CT is used to evaluate the applied tension by WCB when extending the bandage sample by 60% and 120% of its original gauge length (5 cm) using constant traverse speed of 100 mm/min [24]. The digital camera is used while tensile and cyclic loading-unloading of the WCBs; testing details are illustrated in Figure 5.

Testing of bandage pressure using Picopress

All selected WCB types were worn on the human leg to measure the bandage pressure by Picopress at the ankle and mid-calf positions while walking [1].

It is important to give the patient, nurse, or other bandage user clear guidelines for CB application. So, it is possible to predict the required bandage pressure as a function of applied tension or extension, see Figure 4 [AboalasaadA. R.KolčavováB. S.BerkG. G.December2018Effect of compression bandages on muscle's behaviorIOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering4601012034' href="#j_aut-2020-0035_ref_025_w2aab3b7b1b1b6b1ab2b1c25Aa">25, 26].

Figure 4

Positions and guide marks for bandage applications [27].

Figure 5

Testing of tensile and cyclic loading-unloading by Testometric M350-5CT.

Validation of measured pressure using two mathematical models

For validation of WCBs pressure, the measured results using Picopress were compared with theoretical pressure calculated by Laplace's Equation (2) and Al Khaburi's Equation (4) as follows [26, SchurenJ.MohrK.2008The efficacy of Laplace's equation in calculating bandage pressure in venous leg ulcersWounds UK423842' href="#j_aut-2020-0035_ref_028_w2aab3b7b1b1b6b1ab2b1c28Aa">28, 29, 30]: Pressure(Pascal)=Tension(N)*No.ofLayersRadius(m)*Bandagewidth(m){\rm{Pressure}}\,({\rm{Pascal}}) = {{{\rm{Tension}}\,({\rm{N}})*{\rm{No}}.\,{\rm{of}}\,{\rm{Layers}}} \over {{\rm{Radius}}\,({\rm{m}})*{\rm{Bandage}}\,{\rm{width}}\,({\rm{m}})}}Pressure(mmHg)=T(N)*nR(m)*W(m)*0.0075{\rm{Pressure}}\,({\rm{mmHg}}) = {{{\rm{T}}({\rm{N}})*{\rm{n}}} \over {{\rm{R}}({\rm{m}})*{\rm{W}}({\rm{m}})}}*0.0075

The bandage pressure could be mathematically calculated by Laplace's equation which states that the pressure (P measured in Pa) applied to the skin surface is directly proportional to the bandage tension (T, N) and the number of wraps, and inversely proportional to the radius of limb circumference (R, m) and bandage width (W, m) [26, 31].

Tensile and cyclic loading-unloading test

Optimization of the applied tension during bandage application at specified extension ranges is illustrated as summarized in Tables 1 and 2.

Measured compression using Picopress versus calculated pressure by mathematical models at ankle position

Bandage typeNo of layersExtension (%)Applied tension (N)SD of tensionMeasured compression by Picopress (mmHg)Calculated pressure values (mmHg)
Laplace's equationDeviation percent (%)Al-Khaburi equationDeviation percent (%)
Short-stretch 100% cotton bandage2201.750.197.026.45−8.846.29−11.52
302.810.0710.8410.36−4.6710.11−7.24
403.940.1214.6214.52−0.6814.17−3.16
506.060.3121.7122.332.7921.800.41
609.790.8235.1936.082.4735.220.07
7013.371.4145.7149.287.2448.094.96
8017.261.9256.8363.6110.6662.098.47
3201.80.2210.589.95−6.329.60−10.22
302.920.1116.3916.14−1.5315.57−5.25
404.050.1721.8322.392.5021.60−1.07
506.240.3932.6734.505.2933.281.83
6010.120.9451.6155.957.7553.974.37
7013.851.5568.3876.5710.6973.867.42
8017.932.1383.6299.1215.6495.6212.55
Long-stretch CO-PA-PU bandage2201.410.195.575.20−7.195.07−9.82
403.580.1313.8113.19−4.6712.88−7.24
605.250.2120.1319.35−4.0418.88−6.59
808.640.4932.1531.84−0.9631.08−3.45
10010.730.7341.6239.55−5.2538.60−7.83
12013.971.6547.9351.496.9150.254.62
3201.430.188.357.91−5.627.63−9.49
403.640.1521.0620.12−4.6619.41−8.49
605.370.1930.4929.69−2.7128.64−6.47
808.910.5346.4349.265.7447.522.29
10010.940.9756.3960.486.7658.343.35
12014.232.1971.6978.678.8775.895.53

Calculated pressure versus measured compression values at mid-calf position

Bandage typeNo of layersExtension (%)Applied tension (N)SD of tensionMeasured compression by PicoPress (mmHg)Calculated pressure values (mmHg)
Laplace's equationDeviation percent (%)Al-Khaburi equationDeviation percent (%)
Short-stretch 100% cotton bandage2201.710.194.614.14−11.254.08−13.05
302.740.077.136.64−7.386.53−9.12
403.820.129.59.26−2.639.11−4.28
505.890.3114.2114.270.4414.05−1.17
609.550.8223.0823.140.2722.77−1.34
7013.151.4130.8531.873.1931.361.62
8016.861.9237.7540.867.6040.216.11
3201.760.227.086.40−10.676.25−13.34
302.830.1110.7310.29−4.3110.04−6.83
403.970.1714.1114.432.2214.09−0.14
506.110.3920.9222.215.8021.693.53
609.850.9433.4735.806.5234.964.26
7013.461.5544.2148.939.6447.777.46
8017.412.1354.9763.2813.1461.7911.04
Long-stretch CO-PA-PU bandage2201.390.193.753.37−11.333.31−13.13
403.540.139.338.58−8.768.44−10.52
605.190.2113.2812.58−5.5912.38−7.30
808.540.4921.6520.69−4.6220.37−6.31
10010.561.1126.9425.59−5.2825.18−6.98
12013.611.9033.1532.98−0.5132.46−2.14
201.420.185.715.16−10.635.04−13.29
3403.610.1514.4113.12−9.8212.81−12.47
605.290.1920.6319.23−7.2918.78−9.88
808.710.5332.8931.66−3.8930.91−6.39
10010.831.2438.3739.372.5338.440.18
12014.112.3845.9451.2910.4350.088.27
Results and discussions
Load-elongation curves for Cotton SSB and CO-PA-PU LSB

Cotton and CO-PA-PU WCBs were subjected to tensile stress by 60% extension of its original length; cotton bandage achieved 10.3N, whereas CO-PA-PU had only 5.31N at the same extension. When the CO-PA-PU bandage was extended to 120%; it had achieved approximately 14.15N, see Figure 6. These results are matched with some other experimental studies [1, AboalasaadA. R.KolčavováB. S.BerkG. G.December2018Effect of compression bandages on muscle's behaviorIOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering4601012034' href="#j_aut-2020-0035_ref_025_w2aab3b7b1b1b6b1ab2b1c25Aa">25].

Figure 6

Effect of bandage extension on applied tension for short-stretch cotton and long-stretch Cotton/Polyamide/Polyurethane bandages.

Effect of bandage extension on corresponding pressure for WCBs

Bandage pressures using Picopress were evaluated during the Cotton and CO-PA-PU WCBs application for ankle and mid-calf position using two and three wraps bandaging techniques. Figure 7 illustrates that Cotton SSB exerted medium pressure of 21.71 and 32.67 mmHg on ankle position at 50% extension for two and three layers, respectively, while 14.21 and 20.92 mmHg on mid-calf position. Moreover, high pressure 45.71 and 68.38 mmHg on the ankle, 30.85 and 44.21 mmHg on mid-calf positions achieved at 70% extension, see Tables 1 and 2 [1, 32].

Figure 7

Effect of bandage extension on corresponding pressure for short-stretch cotton bandage.

As for long-stretch CO-PA-PU CB, medium pressure of 20.13 and 30.49 mmHg on ankle position at 60% extension, whereas 13.28 and 20.63 mmHg on mid-calf position, as shown in Figure 8. Moreover, high pressure 47.93 and 71.69 mmHg on the ankle, 33.15 and 45.94 mmHg on mid-calf positions achieved at 120% extension, see Tables 1 and 2.

Figure 8

Effect of bandage extension on resultant pressure for Cotton/Polyamide/Polyurethane woven compression bandage.

Effect of bandage tension on resultant pressure for WCBs

Figures 9 and 10 display the corresponding working pressure as a function of bandage tension for short-stretch Cotton and long-stretch CO-PA-PU bandages, respectively. Medium pressure of 35.19 mmHg at ankle position can be achieved at 9.79N using two layers of cotton bandage while high pressure of 68.38 mmHg at 13.85N can be achieved through three layers. On the other hand, CO-PA-PU can achieve 32.15 mmHg at 8.64N and 71.69 mmHg at 14.23N using two and three layers, respectively [1, 33].

Figure 9

Effect of bandage tension on corresponding pressure for short-stretch Cotton bandage.

Figure 10

Effect of bandage tension on corresponding pressure for Cotton/Polyamide/Polyurethane woven compression bandage.

Effect of cyclic loading-unloading on bandage tension and durability

Two types of WCB (100% Cotton SSB and CO-PA-PU LSB) were selected to investigate the relation between cyclic loading and the applied bandage load at 60% and 120% extension. Elongation by 3 cm results in extension by 60% and dwell time for 2 s, then unloading 1 cm reduces extension by 40% and dwell time for 2 s, then repeating the whole cycle for five or six repeats, and then relaxation. Cyclic loading-unloading could simulate the walking action wearing WCB, but the main obstacle is that the testing time is limited compared with bandage application. The uniaxial load of Cotton SSB decreased by 11.82% after six cycles of loading-unloading, whereas CO-PA-PU LSB lost only 4.81% of its applied load at 60% extension. Moreover, CO-PA-PU lost 18.11% at 120% extension, see Figure 9. Therefore, it is essential to include and compensate these reductions of bandage tension during its selection and application.

Comparison between the calculated and measured pressures

A 100% of Cotton and CO-PA-PU WCBs were worn on the human limb to test the real compression at the ankle and mid-calf positions in both resting and walking actions. The deviation percentage was calculated as a function of measured compression by Picopress and calculated pressure by Laplace's law, see Eq. (3).

Deviationpercent(%)=PCalculatedPPicopressPCalculated×100{\rm{Deviation}}\,{\rm{percent}}(\%) = {{{{\rm{P}}_{{\rm{Calculated}}}} - {{\rm{P}}_{{\rm{Picopress}}}}} \over {{{\rm{P}}_{{\rm{Calculated}}}}}} \times 100

The obtained results in Table 1 confirm that there are significant deviations when applying Laplace's equation for two and three layers bandaging ranging ±0.68 to ±15.64%. However, Jawad Al Khaburi developed this Eq. (4) to include the increase in limb circumference due to multilayer bandaging; this equation has decreased the deviation range to be ±0.07: ±12.55% as illustrated in the following Eq. (4) and (5) [34]: P=i=1nTi(Di+ti)0.5*Wi*Di2+Wi*ti(Di+ti)*0.0075{\rm{P}} = \sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^n {{{{{\rm{T}}_{\rm{i}}}({{\rm{D}}_{\rm{i}}} + {{\rm{t}}_{\rm{i}}})} \over {0.5*{{\rm{W}}_{\rm{i}}}*{\rm{D}}_{\rm{i}}^2 + {{\rm{W}}_{\rm{i}}}*{{\rm{t}}_{\rm{i}}}({{\rm{D}}_{\rm{i}}} + {{\rm{t}}_{\rm{i}}})}}} *0.0075WhereDi=D+i=1n2ti1{\rm{Where}}\,{{\rm{D}}_{\rm{i}}} = D + \sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^n {2\,{{\rm{t}}_{{\rm{i}} - 1}}}

Results of Table 2 conclude that the deviation when applying Laplace's equation for mid-calf position is ranging ±0.27 to ±13.14%, while the deviation range of Al Khaburi's equation is ±0.14 to ±11.04%.

Stress-relaxation test for long and short-stretch WCBs

Figures 12 and 13 illustrate that CO-PA-PU LSB recovered approximately 99% of its original length after stress-relaxation; this elastic recovery gives beneficial options through the optimum elasticity when applying the LSB while Cotton SSB recovered only 93% of its gauge length after 5 days of cyclic load-relaxation. Even when this LSB was wrapped on the human leg for 5 days (12 h/day), there was very little residual deformation after a longer treatment time. On the contrary, when Cotton WCBs used for the same time, there was a significant residual deformation, see Figure 12. Moreover, it lost approximately 28.6% of its activity, as confirmed by the cyclic loading-unloading tests, see Figure 13.

Figure 11

Effect of cyclic loading on bandage applied tension.

Figure 12

Effect of stress-relaxation on elastic recovery of long and short-stretch woven bandages.

Figure 13

Effect of cyclic loading on applied load by long and short-stretch woven bandages.

Conclusion

CO-PA-PU and 100% Cotton WCBs were selected to compare long- and short-stretch WCBs in resting and working actions. The short-stretch cotton bandage had 10.3N at 60% extension, whereas long-stretch CO-PA-PU achieved only 5.31N, these LSB should be extended to 120% to achieve 14.15N. So that SSB can be applied for severe leg ulcers and edema cases that need high pressure ranges 50–70 mmHg depending on bandage extension and number of layers. Cyclic loading-unloading test confirmed that short-stretch WCB lost approximately 28.6% of its activity, whereas LSB lost only 10.05% after 5 days of application. The maximum deviations between Picopress and calculated pressure by Laplace's law were 15.64% and 12.55% by Al-Khaburi equation. These deviation values appeared only at the highest pressure values using three layers bandaging on ankle position.

Figure 1

Structure of woven bandages based on the plain weave and elastane [11].
Structure of woven bandages based on the plain weave and elastane [11].

Figure 2

Double weft fabric structure based on Twill weave 1/3, highly twisted warp yarns [12].
Double weft fabric structure based on Twill weave 1/3, highly twisted warp yarns [12].

Figure 3

Long- and short-stretch-woven compression bandages parameters.
Long- and short-stretch-woven compression bandages parameters.

Figure 4

Positions and guide marks for bandage applications [27].
Positions and guide marks for bandage applications [27].

Figure 5

Testing of tensile and cyclic loading-unloading by Testometric M350-5CT.
Testing of tensile and cyclic loading-unloading by Testometric M350-5CT.

Figure 6

Effect of bandage extension on applied tension for short-stretch cotton and long-stretch Cotton/Polyamide/Polyurethane bandages.
Effect of bandage extension on applied tension for short-stretch cotton and long-stretch Cotton/Polyamide/Polyurethane bandages.

Figure 7

Effect of bandage extension on corresponding pressure for short-stretch cotton bandage.
Effect of bandage extension on corresponding pressure for short-stretch cotton bandage.

Figure 8

Effect of bandage extension on resultant pressure for Cotton/Polyamide/Polyurethane woven compression bandage.
Effect of bandage extension on resultant pressure for Cotton/Polyamide/Polyurethane woven compression bandage.

Figure 9

Effect of bandage tension on corresponding pressure for short-stretch Cotton bandage.
Effect of bandage tension on corresponding pressure for short-stretch Cotton bandage.

Figure 10

Effect of bandage tension on corresponding pressure for Cotton/Polyamide/Polyurethane woven compression bandage.
Effect of bandage tension on corresponding pressure for Cotton/Polyamide/Polyurethane woven compression bandage.

Figure 11

Effect of cyclic loading on bandage applied tension.
Effect of cyclic loading on bandage applied tension.

Figure 12

Effect of stress-relaxation on elastic recovery of long and short-stretch woven bandages.
Effect of stress-relaxation on elastic recovery of long and short-stretch woven bandages.

Figure 13

Effect of cyclic loading on applied load by long and short-stretch woven bandages.
Effect of cyclic loading on applied load by long and short-stretch woven bandages.

Measured compression using Picopress versus calculated pressure by mathematical models at ankle position

Bandage typeNo of layersExtension (%)Applied tension (N)SD of tensionMeasured compression by Picopress (mmHg)Calculated pressure values (mmHg)
Laplace's equationDeviation percent (%)Al-Khaburi equationDeviation percent (%)
Short-stretch 100% cotton bandage2201.750.197.026.45−8.846.29−11.52
302.810.0710.8410.36−4.6710.11−7.24
403.940.1214.6214.52−0.6814.17−3.16
506.060.3121.7122.332.7921.800.41
609.790.8235.1936.082.4735.220.07
7013.371.4145.7149.287.2448.094.96
8017.261.9256.8363.6110.6662.098.47
3201.80.2210.589.95−6.329.60−10.22
302.920.1116.3916.14−1.5315.57−5.25
404.050.1721.8322.392.5021.60−1.07
506.240.3932.6734.505.2933.281.83
6010.120.9451.6155.957.7553.974.37
7013.851.5568.3876.5710.6973.867.42
8017.932.1383.6299.1215.6495.6212.55
Long-stretch CO-PA-PU bandage2201.410.195.575.20−7.195.07−9.82
403.580.1313.8113.19−4.6712.88−7.24
605.250.2120.1319.35−4.0418.88−6.59
808.640.4932.1531.84−0.9631.08−3.45
10010.730.7341.6239.55−5.2538.60−7.83
12013.971.6547.9351.496.9150.254.62
3201.430.188.357.91−5.627.63−9.49
403.640.1521.0620.12−4.6619.41−8.49
605.370.1930.4929.69−2.7128.64−6.47
808.910.5346.4349.265.7447.522.29
10010.940.9756.3960.486.7658.343.35
12014.232.1971.6978.678.8775.895.53

Calculated pressure versus measured compression values at mid-calf position

Bandage typeNo of layersExtension (%)Applied tension (N)SD of tensionMeasured compression by PicoPress (mmHg)Calculated pressure values (mmHg)
Laplace's equationDeviation percent (%)Al-Khaburi equationDeviation percent (%)
Short-stretch 100% cotton bandage2201.710.194.614.14−11.254.08−13.05
302.740.077.136.64−7.386.53−9.12
403.820.129.59.26−2.639.11−4.28
505.890.3114.2114.270.4414.05−1.17
609.550.8223.0823.140.2722.77−1.34
7013.151.4130.8531.873.1931.361.62
8016.861.9237.7540.867.6040.216.11
3201.760.227.086.40−10.676.25−13.34
302.830.1110.7310.29−4.3110.04−6.83
403.970.1714.1114.432.2214.09−0.14
506.110.3920.9222.215.8021.693.53
609.850.9433.4735.806.5234.964.26
7013.461.5544.2148.939.6447.777.46
8017.412.1354.9763.2813.1461.7911.04
Long-stretch CO-PA-PU bandage2201.390.193.753.37−11.333.31−13.13
403.540.139.338.58−8.768.44−10.52
605.190.2113.2812.58−5.5912.38−7.30
808.540.4921.6520.69−4.6220.37−6.31
10010.561.1126.9425.59−5.2825.18−6.98
12013.611.9033.1532.98−0.5132.46−2.14
201.420.185.715.16−10.635.04−13.29
3403.610.1514.4113.12−9.8212.81−12.47
605.290.1920.6319.23−7.2918.78−9.88
808.710.5332.8931.66−3.8930.91−6.39
10010.831.2438.3739.372.5338.440.18
12014.112.3845.9451.2910.4350.088.27

Aboalasaad, A. R. R., Sirková, B. K. (2019). Analysis and prediction of woven compression bandages properties. The Journal of the Textile Institute, 110(7), 1085–1091.AboalasaadA. R. R.SirkováB. K.2019Analysis and prediction of woven compression bandages propertiesThe Journal of the Textile Institute110710851091Search in Google Scholar

Kaur, B. (2018). Bandages: Short-stretch vs long-stretch. [Online]. June 25, 2018.KaurB.2018Bandages: Short-stretch vs long-stretch[Online]. June 25, 2018.Search in Google Scholar

De Carvalho, M. R., de Oliveira, B. G. (2017). Compression therapy for venous leg ulcers: a systematic review of the literature. Enfermería Global, 16(1), 574–593.De CarvalhoM. R.de OliveiraB. G.2017Compression therapy for venous leg ulcers: a systematic review of the literatureEnfermería Global161574593Search in Google Scholar

Nair, B. (2014). Compression therapy for venous leg ulcers. Indian Dermatology Online Journal, 5(3), 378–382.NairB.2014Compression therapy for venous leg ulcersIndian Dermatology Online Journal53378382Search in Google Scholar

Caprini, J. A., Partsch, H., Simman, R. (2012). Venous ulcers. Journal of the American College of Clinical Wound Specialists, 4(3), 54–60.CapriniJ. A.PartschH.SimmanR.2012Venous ulcersJournal of the American College of Clinical Wound Specialists435460Search in Google Scholar

O’Donnell, T. F., Passman, M. A., Marston, W. A., Ennis, W. J., Dalsing, M., et al. (2014). Management of venous leg ulcers: Clinical practice guidelines of the society for vascular surgery® and the American venous forum. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 60(2), 3S–59S.O’DonnellT. F.PassmanM. A.MarstonW. A.EnnisW. J.DalsingM.2014Management of venous leg ulcers: Clinical practice guidelines of the society for vascular surgery® and the American venous forumJournal of Vascular Surgery6023S59SSearch in Google Scholar

Partsch, H., Mortimer, P. (2015). Compression for leg wounds. British Journal of Dermatology, 173(2), 359–369.PartschH.MortimerP.2015Compression for leg woundsBritish Journal of Dermatology1732359369Search in Google Scholar

Nelson, E. A., Hillman, A., Thomas, K. (2014). Intermittent pneumatic compression for treating venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 5.NelsonE. A.HillmanA.ThomasK.2014Intermittent pneumatic compression for treating venous leg ulcersCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews5Search in Google Scholar

Agale, S. V. (2013). Chronic leg ulcers: Epidemiology, aetiopathogenesis, and management. Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Ulcers, Article ID 413604.AgaleS. V.2013Chronic leg ulcers: Epidemiology, aetiopathogenesis, and managementHindawi Publishing Corporation, Ulcers, Article ID 413604.Search in Google Scholar

Zuther, J. (January 12, 2012). The role of short-stretch bandages in the management of Lymphedema. Online. May 2, 2019.ZutherJ.January122012The role of short-stretch bandages in the management of LymphedemaOnline. May 2, 2019.Search in Google Scholar

Sikka, M. P., Ghosh, S., Mukhopadhyay, A. (2014). The structural configuration and stretch property relationship of high stretch bandage fabric. Fibers and Polymers, 15(8), 1779–1785.SikkaM. P.GhoshS.MukhopadhyayA.2014The structural configuration and stretch property relationship of high stretch bandage fabricFibers and Polymers15817791785Search in Google Scholar

Aboalasaad, A. R. R., Sirková, B. K. (2017). Analysis and prediction of compression bandages tension. Ph. D. Students Day, 6. Liberec, Czech Republic.AboalasaadA. R. R.SirkováB. K.2017Analysis and prediction of compression bandages tensionPh. D. Students Day, 6. Liberec, Czech Republic.Search in Google Scholar

Jouanny, S. (March 20, 2018). The difference between short-stretch and long-stretch bandages. Web site: https://www.mylymph.com/2018/03/20/difference-between-short-long-stretch-bandages/. [Online]. April 10, 2019.JouannyS.March202018The difference between short-stretch and long-stretch bandagesWeb site: https://www.mylymph.com/2018/03/20/difference-between-short-long-stretch-bandages/. [Online]. April 10, 2019.Search in Google Scholar

Mosti, G., Partsch, H. (2019). A wearable compression device to normalise calf muscle pump function in chronic venous insufficiency for each postural position. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.20.MostiG.PartschH.2019A wearable compression device to normalise calf muscle pump function in chronic venous insufficiency for each postural positionEuropean Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery10.1016/j.ejvs.20Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Langer, V. (2014). Compression therapy for leg ulcers. Indian Dermatology Online Journal, 5(4), 533–534.LangerV.2014Compression therapy for leg ulcersIndian Dermatology Online Journal54533534Search in Google Scholar

Partsch, H., Menzinger, G., Mostbeck, A. (1999). Inelastic leg compression is more effective to reduce deep venous refluxes than elastic bandages. Dermatologic Surgery, 25(9), 695–700.PartschH.MenzingerG.MostbeckA.1999Inelastic leg compression is more effective to reduce deep venous refluxes than elastic bandagesDermatologic Surgery259695700Search in Google Scholar

Moody, M. (1999). Comparison of Rosidal K and SurePress in the treatment of venous leg ulcers. British Journal of Nursing, 8(6), 345–355.MoodyM.1999Comparison of Rosidal K and SurePress in the treatment of venous leg ulcersBritish Journal of Nursing86345355Search in Google Scholar

Partsch, H. (2005). The Static Stiffness Index – a simple method to assess the elastic property of compression material in vivo. Dermatologic Surgery, 31(6), 625–630.PartschH.2005The Static Stiffness Index – a simple method to assess the elastic property of compression material in vivoDermatologic Surgery316625630Search in Google Scholar

Polignano, R., Boneado, P., Gasbarro, S., Allegra, C. (2004). A randomised controlled study of four-layer compression versus Unna's Boot for venous ulcers. Journal of Wound Care, 13(1), 21–24.PolignanoR.BoneadoP.GasbarroS.AllegraC.2004A randomised controlled study of four-layer compression versus Unna's Boot for venous ulcersJournal of Wound Care1312124Search in Google Scholar

Rooke, T. W., et al. (2011). ACCF/AHA focused update of the guideline for the management of patients with peripheral artery disease (updating the 2005 guideline): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.RookeT. W.2011ACCF/AHA focused update of the guideline for the management of patients with peripheral artery disease (updating the 2005 guideline): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice GuidelinesSearch in Google Scholar

Meah, Y. S., et al. (2016). Wound care in home-based settings. In: Hayashi, J., Leff, B. (Eds.). Geriatric home-based medical care. Springer (Cham), pp. 195–236.MeahY. S.2016Wound care in home-based settingsIn:HayashiJ.LeffB.(Eds.).Geriatric home-based medical careSpringerCham195236Search in Google Scholar

Attaran, R. R., Ochoa Chaar, C. I. (2017). Compression therapy for venous disease. Phlebology, 32(2), 81–88.AttaranR. R.Ochoa ChaarC. I.2017Compression therapy for venous diseasePhlebology3228188Search in Google Scholar

ISO, E. (1999). 13934-1: 1999 Textiles—tensile properties of fabrics—part 1: determination of maximum force and elongation at maximum force using the strip method. European Committee for Standardisation. International Organization for Standardization.ISO, E199913934-1: 1999 Textiles—tensile properties of fabrics—part 1: determination of maximum force and elongation at maximum force using the strip methodEuropean Committee for Standardisation. International Organization for Standardization.Search in Google Scholar

Kumar, B., Das, A., Alagirusamy, R. (2013). An approach to examine dynamic behavior of medical compression bandage. Journal of the Textile Institute, 104(5), 521–529.KumarB.DasA.AlagirusamyR.2013An approach to examine dynamic behavior of medical compression bandageJournal of the Textile Institute1045521529Search in Google Scholar

Aboalasaad, A. R., Kolčavová, B. S., Berk, G. G. (December 2018). Effect of compression bandages on muscle's behavior. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 460(1), 012034.AboalasaadA. R.KolčavováB. S.BerkG. G.December2018Effect of compression bandages on muscle's behaviorIOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering4601012034Search in Google Scholar

Rimaud, D., Convert, R., Calmels, P. (2014). In vivo measurement of compression bandage interface pressures: the first study. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 57(6–7), 394–408.RimaudD.ConvertR.CalmelsP.2014In vivo measurement of compression bandage interface pressures: the first studyAnnals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine576–7394408Search in Google Scholar

Kwon, C., Hegarty, M., Oxenham, W., Thoney-Barletta, K., Grant, E., et al. (2018). An indirect testing approach for characterizing pressure profiles of compression bandages and hosiery. The Journal of the Textile Institute, 109(2), 256–267.KwonC.HegartyM.OxenhamW.Thoney-BarlettaK.GrantE.2018An indirect testing approach for characterizing pressure profiles of compression bandages and hosieryThe Journal of the Textile Institute1092256267Search in Google Scholar

Schuren, J., Mohr, K. (2008). The efficacy of Laplace's equation in calculating bandage pressure in venous leg ulcers. Wounds UK, 4(2), 38–42.SchurenJ.MohrK.2008The efficacy of Laplace's equation in calculating bandage pressure in venous leg ulcersWounds UK423842Search in Google Scholar

Kumar, B., Das, A., Alagirusamy, R. (2013). Study on interface pressure generated by a bandage using in vitro pressure measurement system. The Journal of the Textile Institute, 104(12), 1374–1383KumarB.DasA.AlagirusamyR.2013Study on interface pressure generated by a bandage using in vitro pressure measurement systemThe Journal of the Textile Institute1041213741383Search in Google Scholar

Anand, S. C., Govarthanam, K. K., Gazioglu, D. (2013). A study of the modelling and characterisation of compression garments for hypertrophic scarring after burns. Part 1: Modelling of compression garments. Journal of the Textile Institute, 104(7), 661–667.AnandS. C.GovarthanamK. K.GaziogluD.2013A study of the modelling and characterisation of compression garments for hypertrophic scarring after burns. Part 1: Modelling of compression garmentsJournal of the Textile Institute1047661667Search in Google Scholar

Das, A., Alagirusamy, R., Goel, D., Garg, P. (2010). Internal pressure profiling of medical bandages.. The Journal of the Textile Institute, 101(6), 481–487.DasA.AlagirusamyR.GoelD.GargP.2010Internal pressure profiling of medical bandagesThe Journal of the Textile Institute1016481487Search in Google Scholar

Partsch, H., Clark, M., Mosti, G., Steinlechner, E., Schuren, J., et al. (2008). Classification of compression bandages: practical aspects. Dermatologic Surgery, 34(5), 600–609.PartschH.ClarkM.MostiG.SteinlechnerE.SchurenJ.2008Classification of compression bandages: practical aspectsDermatologic Surgery345600609Search in Google Scholar

Aboalasaad, A. R., Sirková, B., Ahmad, Z. (2019). Influence of tensile stress on woven compression bandage structure and porosity. Autex Research Journal (published online ahead of print). doi: 10.2478/aut-2019-0027AboalasaadA. R.SirkováB.AhmadZ.2019Influence of tensile stress on woven compression bandage structure and porosityAutex Research Journal (published online ahead of print)10.2478/aut-2019-0027Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Al Khaburi, J., Dehghani-Sanij, A., Nelson, A., Hutchinson, J. (2012). Effect of bandage thickness on interface pressure applied by compression bandages. Medical Engineering & Physics, 34(3), 378–385.Al KhaburiJ.Dehghani-SanijA.NelsonA.HutchinsonJ.2012Effect of bandage thickness on interface pressure applied by compression bandagesMedical Engineering & Physics343378385Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo