STUDY: Advantages and disadvantages of graduated and inverse graduated compression hosiery 

14.12.2016 

Phlebology. 2016 Dec 8. [Epub ahead of print]


Advantages and disadvantages of graduated and inverse graduated compression hosiery in patients with chronic venous insufficiency and healthy volunteers: A prospective, mono-centric, blinded, open randomised, controlled and cross-over trial.

 

Riebe H(1), Konschake W(2), Haase H(2), Jünger M(2).

 

Author information:

(1)Department of Dermatology, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany helene.riebe@uni-greifswald.de. (2)Department of Dermatology, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.

 

BACKGROUND: The therapeutic effectiveness of compression therapy depends on the selection of compression hosiery. OBJECTIVES: To assess efficacy and tolerability of graduated elastic compression stockings (GECS) and inverse graduated elastic compression stockings (PECS).

 

METHODS: Thirty-two healthy volunteers and thirty-two patients with chronic venous insufficiency were analysed; wear period: one week for each stocking type (randomised, blinded).

 

PRIMARY OUTCOME: volume reduction of 'Lower leg' (Image3D®) and 'Distal leg and foot' (water plethysmography).

 

SECONDARY OUTCOMES: clinical symptoms of chronic venous insufficiency assessed by the Venous Clinical Severity Score, side effects and wear comfort in both groups.

 

RESULTS:

  • Volume of 'Lower leg': significant reduction in healthy volunteers (mean GECS: -37.5 mL, mean PECS: -37.2 mL) and in patients (mean GECS: -55.6 mL, mean PECS: -41.6 mL).
  • Volume of 'Distal lower leg and foot': significant reduction in healthy volunteers (mean GECS: -27 mL, mean PECS: -16.7 mL),
  • Significant reduction in patients by GECS (mean: -43.4 mL), but non-significant reduction by PECS (mean: -22.6 mL).
  • Clinical symptoms of chronic venous insufficiency were improved significantly better with GECS than with PECS, p < 0.001.
  • GECS led to more painful constrictions, p = 0.047,
  • PECS slipped down more often, p < 0.001.

CONCLUSION:

  • GECS and PECS reduce volume of the segment 'Lower leg' in patients and healthy volunteers.
  • Patients' volume of the 'Distal lower leg and foot', however, were diminished significantly only by GECS (p = 0.0001).
  • Patients' complaints were improved by both GECS and PECS, and GECS were superior to PECS.

 

© The Author(s) 2016.