Study of Three Interface Pressure Measurement Systems Used in the Treatment of Venous Disease

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.

Bite Force Transducers and Measurement Devices

“…Valentim et al used Flexiforce to measure the force exerted by the tongue and upper lip on the teeth of 28 subjects during rest and swallowing and found that the lips exerted more force on the upper central incisor than the tongue does at rest, while during swallowing, there was no difference between the force of the tongue and the lips on the teeth (Valentim et al, 2014). However, some scientists have shown that these sensors are not as accurate as other types of pressure sensors (Athavale et al, 2020;Nandasiri et al, 2020).…”

Pressure-Measuring Devices for Compression Therapy in Venous Leg Ulcers: A Comprehensive Review

“…It also demonstrated a lower SD and consistency with a subsurface (mimicking subcutaneous) pressure exertion when compared with an electrical-based (piezoresistive) sensor 32,33 . Other researchers verified that the PicoPress and AMI air-pack sensors are more accurate than the FlexiForce (piezoresistive sensor) in an examination with a manometer 34 . Further, PicoPress is recommended for in vitro study of compression bandages, and training programs for clinical practitioners are available 7,35 .…”

“…32,33 Other researchers verified that the PicoPress and AMI air-pack sensors are more accurate than the FlexiForce (piezoresistive sensor) in an examination with a manometer. 34 Further, PicoPress is recommended for in vitro study of compression bandages, and training programs for clinical practitioners are available. 7,35 However, the PicoPress and Kikuhime might be inaccurate when compared with computationally calculated pressures.…”

Customised pressure profiles of made-to-measure sports compression garments

“…Given: (1) the smaller limits of agreement and slope parameter noted above; (2) that the differences measured in the current study were > 3 mmHg; and (3) that all pressure measurements were made along the posterior aspect of the leg as recommended by [39]; it can be concluded that the Kikuhime pressure monitoring device was adequate for making the measurements here. Another recent study [41] noted that the dimensions of the air-filled sensor on a pressure monitoring device may influence the accuracy of the pressure measurement, and the PicoPress has a relatively large sensor area (50 mm) which may limit its ability to measure pressure accurately on small or curved areas. Conversely, the Kikuhime device has a smaller sensor area (38 × 30 mm) which makes it more suitable for measuring pressure on areas with high curvatures that are found on parts of the human leg (e.g.…”