Page 51 - Read Online

Kim et al. Pressures secondary to circumferential digital dressings

3,000

800 2,000
Measured pressures (mmHg) 400 Measured pressures (mmHg) 1,000
600

200

0 0
1CT0 2CT0 3CT0 NR R NR R
Figure 5: Measured pressures according to the length of the T0-1C~3C T1~T4-2C
bandage without tightness along the adult finger model. 1CT0: 1
wrap with the same length of its circumference; 2CT0: 2 wraps with Figure 7: Measured pressures according to the rolling up of
2 times the length of its circumference; 3CT0: 3 wraps with 3 times untightened dressings and tightened dressings along the adult
the length of its circumference. *P < 0.05 finger model. NR: unrolled; R: rolled up; T0-1C~3C: untightened
bandages; T1~T4-2C: tightened bandages. *P < 0.05
3,000
lower than those of the rolled bandages (R, 793.1 ±
Measured pressures (mmHg) 2,000 measured pressures of the unrolled bandages (T0-
1,265.7 mmHg, P < 0.001). In each untightened and
tightened bandage (T0-1C~3C), (T1~T4-2C), the

1C~3C-NR, 0 ± 0 mmHg), (T1~T4-2C-NR, 28.3 ± 29.9 mmHg),
were significantly lower than those for the rolled
bandages (T0-1C~3C-R, 309.6 ± 544.0 mmHg, P <
1,000
0.001), (T1~T4-2C-R, 1,332.0 ± 1,551.1 mmHg, P <

0 0.001) [Figure 7].
Regarding rolls of bandages at various lengths along
T0 T1~T4 T0 T1~T4
the adult finger model (NR, R in 1C-T0, 2C-T0, 3C-T0):
Ph Co in each wrap (1C-T0, 2C-T0, 3C-T0), the measured
Figure 6: Measured pressures according to the tightness in pressures of the unrolled bandages (1C-T0-NR, 0
different materials along the adult finger model. T0: untightened
bandage; T1~T4: tightened bandages; Ph: Peha-haft; Co: Coban. ± 0 mmHg), (2C-T0-NR, 0 ± 0 mmHg), (3C-T0-NR,
*P < 0.05 0 ± 0 mmHg) were significantly lower than those of
the rolled bandages (1C-T0-R, 70.7 ± 15.9 mmHg, P
bandage were 44.1 ± 47.7 mmHg (2C-T0, 0%), 61.2 ± < 0.001), (2C-T0-R, 88.2 ± 24.0 mmHg, P < 0.001),
67.4 mmHg (2C-T1, 9.4%), 261.1 ± 409.5 mmHg (2C- (3C-T0-R, 769.8 ± 764.0 mmHg, P < 0.001). In the
T2, 19.7%), 471.2 ± 671.3 mmHg (2C-T3, 33.3%), and above situations, the same results were yielded for
1,945.0 ± 1,945.0 mmHg (2 CT4, 50.5%), respectively. each material (Ph, Co) [Table 1].
The measured pressures of the 2C-T4 (50% tightened)
were significantly higher (P < 0.001) than those in Regarding various levels of tightness along the adult
other groups. However, there was no significant finger model (NR, R in 2C-T0, 2C-T1, 2C-T2, 2C-T3,
difference between the 2C-T0, 2C-T1, 2C-T2, and 2C-T4): at each tightness level, bandages of the 2 C
2C-T3 parameters (P > 0.05). For each material (Ph group (2C-T0, 2C-T1, 2C-T2, 2C-T3, 2C-T4), measured
and Co), the measured pressures of the untightened pressures of the not-rolled up bandage (2C-T0-NR,
bandage (T0-Ph, 34.8 ± 36.6 mmHg), (T0-Co, 53.5 ± 0 ± 0 mmHg), (2C-T1-NR, 0 ± 0 mmHg), (2C-T2-NR,
56.1 mmHg) was significantly lower than that of the 24.8 ± 25.4 mmHg), (2C-T3-NR, 24.76 ± 25.4 mmHg),
tightened bandage (T1~T4-Ph, 511.9 ± 1,166.1 mmHg, (2C-T4-NR, 63.9 ± 14.7 mmHg) were significantly lower
P < 0.001), (T1~T4-Co, 848.4 ± 1,360.2 mmHg, P < than those for the rolled up bandage (2C-T0-R, 88.2 ±
0.001) [Figure 6]. 24.0 mmHg, P < 0.001), (2C-T1-R, 122.4 ± 37.9 mmHg,
P < 0.001), (2C-T2-R, 497.5 ± 475.3 mmHg, P < 0.001),
Regarding rolled bandages in the adult finger model (2C-T3-R, 917.7 ± 710.4 mmHg, P < 0.001), (2C-T4-R,
(NR, R): the measured pressures of the unrolled 3,790.4 ± 675.2 mmHg, P < 0.001). In the above
bandages (NR, 14.2 ± 25.4 mmHg) were significantly situations, the same results were shown for each
44 Plastic and Aesthetic Research ¦ Volume 4 ¦ March 22, 2017