Page 50 - Read Online

Kim et al. Pressures secondary to circumferential digital dressings

A A B C
11’
10’
S
B

M

1 wrap (7 cm) 2 wraps (14 cm) 3 wraps (21 cm)
B
Figure 4: Schematic representation of the location of the pressure
sensor (S) and wraps around the finger model (M); B: self-adherent
bandage. A: 1 wrap with the same length of its circumference; B: 2
wraps with 2 times the length of its circumference; C: 3 wraps with
3 times the length of its circumference
metacarpophalangeal and proximal phalangeal joints
C with the reasoning that the pressures of the dorsal
and volar surfaces are the same in a circumferential
dressing, and pressure measurements of the dorsum
are easier to take in living subjects [Figures 2-4]. The
pressure sensor was calibrated to measure pressures
in the range of 0 to 4,500 mm of mercury obtained by
Figure 2: Making a finger tourniquet and pressure measurements. the Economical Load and Force software program at
A: finger model, pressure sensor, and self-adherent bandage; B: a refresh rate of 200 Hz. The pressure measurements
the sensor was placed in a standardized location and the bandage were made by the same person to prevent bias.
was wound two wraps around the finger model; C: the bandage
was rolled up along the finger model
Statstical analysis
A The program SPSS 19.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY) was used
for a statistical analysis. For comparison between 2
groups, the independent 2 samples t-test was used.
For comparison among more than 3 groups, analysis
of variance (ANOVA) was used. When the P value was
less than 0.05, the data were interpreted as statistically
significant.
B
RESULTS

Measured pressures were higher in tighter bandages,
in rolled-up bandages, with the use of Co, in the live
models, and in adults.
C
According to the length along the adult finger model
(1C-T0, 2C-T0, 3C-T0): the measured pressure of 3
wraps (3C-T0, 384.9 ± 660.5 mmHg) was significantly
higher than that for 1 wrap (1C-T0, 35.3 ± 37.5 mmHg,
P < 0.001), or 2 wraps (2C-T0, 44.1 ± 47.7 mmHg, P
< 0.001). However, there was no significant difference
Figure 3: Finger models. A: adult finger model; B: child finger between 1 wrap and 2 wraps (P = 0.994) [Figure 5].
model; C: finger of a living body
According to the tightness of 2 wraps along the adult
Boston, MA), which is a flexible, wafer thin (0.005”) finger model (2C-T0, 2C-T1, 2C-T2, 2C-T3, 2C-T4):
10 mm diameter disk-shaped sensor designed the measured pressures of the untightened bandages
specifically to measure the force between 2 surfaces (2C-T0, 44.1 ± 47.7 mmHg) were significantly lower
without disturbing the dynamics of the test. The than those of the tightened bandages (2C-T1~4, 680.2
[2]
sensor was placed in a standardized location ± 1,274.1 mmHg, P < 0.001). The measured pressures
on the dorsum of each digit equidistant from the of the untightened bandages and each tightened
Plastic and Aesthetic Research ¦ Volume 4 ¦ March 22, 2017 43