[Compression devices for decongestion therapy : A cross-sectional observational survey of handling, pressure, and comfort].

BACKGROUND: If compression bandaging is not performed in a professional manner, the objectives of the therapy may not be achieved and side effects or complications may result.

OBJECTIVES: This cross-sectional observational survey examines the handling of the treatment options: short-stretch bandages with padding, multicomponent compression systems, and adaptive compression bandages.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: During several training sessions on the topic of compression therapy, 137 participants performed compression bandagings on each other. In this regard, they were asked to achieve a predetermined pressure range (short-stretch bandages: 50-60 mm Hg, multicomponent compression systems: 40-50 mm Hg, adaptive compression bandage: 35-45 mm Hg). To evaluate the efficiency, the time used for application, the achieved pressure value, and the comfort were determined.

RESULTS: Of the 302 bandagings (n = 137 participants), 28.4% lay within the given target pressure value range. This included 11.2% of performed short-stretch bandages, 35.2% of multicomponent compression systems, and 85.0% of adaptive compression bandages. Significant differences in the mean deviations are found between the treatment options. The bandage was described as being comfortable by 37.7% of users of short-stretch bandages with padding, by 65.0% of those wearing a multicomponent compression system, and by 94.6% of participants with an adaptive compression bandage.

CONCLUSIONS: In practice, short-stretch bandages are still the most frequently used care option for the creation of a phlebological compression bandage. In this survey, they proved to be unsafe, time-consuming, and uncomfortable in relation to other treatment options. Multicomponent compression systems and adaptive compression bandages are treatment options that may be a contemporary alternative which also bares more comfort for the patient.