Abstract
The aim of the publication is to report the accuracy, repeatability and the linearity of three commercially available interface pressure measurement systems employed in the treatment of venous disease. The advances in the treatment and management of chronic venous disease by compression therapy have led to considerable research interest in interface pressure measurement systems capable of measuring low-pressure ranges (10–60 mmHg). The application of a graduated pressure profile is key for the treatment of chronic venous disease which is achieved by using compression bandages or stockings; the required pressure profiles are defined in standards (BSI, RAL-GZ, or AFNOR) for different conditions. However, achieving the recommended pressure levels and its accuracy is still deemed to be a challenge. Thus, it is vital to choose a suitable pressure measurement system with high accuracy of interface pressure. The authors investigated the sensing performance of three commercially available different pressure sensors: two pneumatic based (AMI and PicoPress®) and one piezoresistive (FlexiForce®) pressure sensors, with extensive experimental work on their performance in terms of linearity, repeatability, and accuracy. Both pneumatic based pressure measurement systems have shown higher accuracy in comparison to the flexible piezoresistive pressure sensors.
Highlights
Compression therapy is the most widely used treatment method for preventing adverse effects of chronic venous disease (CVD) [1,2]
The current approach for compression therapy takes the form of conventional passive systems such as medical compression bandages, graduated compression stockings, and active systems such as intermittent pneumatic compression devices [1,3]
The performance parameters required for effective validation of the interface pressure measurement systems such as repeatability, linearity, hysteresis, and accuracy were compared against each interface pressure measurement sensors
Summary
Compression therapy is the most widely used treatment method for preventing adverse effects of chronic venous disease (CVD) [1,2]. Partsch and Mosti [19] compared PicoPress® to Kikuhime® and SIGat-Tester® and determined PicoPress® was the most accurate with the least variation They have not tested for pressures lower than 10 mmHg. Comparatively, there is less information available about both the static and dynamic performance of AMI in comparison with the other pressure measurement systems. There have been previous studies carried out on these available flexible piezoresistive force sensors in determining the applied pressure during the compression therapy-based treatments for CVD [7,15,20,21] These force sensors consist of a force sensing piezoresistive material with electrical resistance properties that vary with the applied force, the interface pressure is calculated measuring the applied force per unit area. The performance parameters required for effective validation of the interface pressure measurement systems such as repeatability, linearity, hysteresis, and accuracy were compared against each interface pressure measurement sensors
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
