Version 1
: Received: 11 February 2021 / Approved: 12 February 2021 / Online: 12 February 2021 (10:20:28 CET)
How to cite:
Kim, D.; Won, Y.H.; Ko, M. Comparison of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression Device and Compression Stockings for Workers with Leg Edema and Pain after Prolonged Standing. Preprints2021, 2021020297. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202102.0297.v1
Kim, D.; Won, Y.H.; Ko, M. Comparison of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression Device and Compression Stockings for Workers with Leg Edema and Pain after Prolonged Standing. Preprints 2021, 2021020297. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202102.0297.v1
Kim, D.; Won, Y.H.; Ko, M. Comparison of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression Device and Compression Stockings for Workers with Leg Edema and Pain after Prolonged Standing. Preprints2021, 2021020297. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202102.0297.v1
APA Style
Kim, D., Won, Y.H., & Ko, M. (2021). Comparison of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression Device and Compression Stockings for Workers with Leg Edema and Pain after Prolonged Standing. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202102.0297.v1
Chicago/Turabian Style
Kim, D., Yu Hui Won and Myoung-Hwan Ko. 2021 "Comparison of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression Device and Compression Stockings for Workers with Leg Edema and Pain after Prolonged Standing" Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202102.0297.v1
Abstract
During prolonged standing, insufficient calf muscle pumping accompanies venous stasis and hypertension in the lower legs, resulting in valve dysfunction, venous wall problems, and subsequent inflammation. Compression therapy, which includes medical compression stockings (MCS) and mechanical intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC), is one of the most effective therapeutic interventions for treating chronic venous diseases. This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of IPC and MCS, and the optimal protocol of compression therapy for chronic venous disease. This crossover trial was conducted for healthy, long standing workers (>8 h daily) with leg edema and pain. Four groups were established for each visit: group A (resting after work without MCS), group B (resting after work with MCS), group C (IPC after work without MCS), and group D (IPC after work with MCS). The primary outcome was the visual analogue scale (VAS) score for leg pain. The secondary outcomes were leg volume (mL), circumference (cm), extracellular fluid/total body fluid (ECF/TBF), and extracellular water/total body water (ECW/TBW) through bioimpedance analysis. Outcomes were assessed before work (T0), after work (T1), and 60 minutes after intervention (T2). We included 39 healthy volunteers, aged 30.03±7.56 years. All four groups had significantly increased leg pain after work (T0-1) but improved 60 minutes after intervention (T1-2), particularly group C (decreased VAS by 1.9). When leg swelling was compared at T0 and T1, groups A and C showed significant increases in leg volume and circumference, indicating significant work-induced edema, whereas groups B and D showed no change or even a decrease. After interventions, leg volume and circumference significantly decreased in groups A and C, although groups B and C did not show significant improvement. The ECF/TBF and ECW/TBW of all groups decreased after interventions. Leg pain and edema after prolonged standing in healthy adults were safely and effectively improved by IPC. Although MCS also reduced leg edema immediately after work, it did not show significant improvement in leg pain at T0-1–and T1-2, nor in swelling at T1-2.
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
