PubMed · 14295524
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
E EPSTEIN. 1965. MISLEADING MASCARA PATCH TESTS.. https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.1965.01600120047009
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVE: To compare performance of four commercial four-layer bandage systems when applied to the leg. METHODS: Four experienced bandagers applied each system: [Profore Regular (Smith and Nephew); Ultra-Four (Robinson); System 4 (Seton) and K Four (Parema)] to the same leg. Bandages were applied as single layers and as completed systems using standard techniques. For each application, 18 pressure measurements were taken using the Borgnis Medical Stocking Tester (MST) at three measuring points (ankle, gaiter and mid-calf) on medial and lateral aspects in three postures: (horizontal, standing and sitting). RESULTS: In all 2304 observations were made, 576 for each bandager, 576 for each bandaging system, 768 for each measuring point, 1152 for each aspect and 768 for each posture. The increase in pressure produced by each additional layer was 65-75% of the pressure of the same bandage when used as a single layer. There were significant differences in the final pressures achieved by the bandagers (means: 45-54 mmHg, p<0.001) and between bandage systems (means: System 4: 46 mmHg, Profore: 47 mmHg, K Four: 52 mmHg, Ultra-Four: 54 mmHg; p=0.005). The relationships between the final pressures achieved at each of the three measuring points, the three postures and the two aspects were not consistent among the bandage systems (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: When a bandage is applied as part of a multi-layered system it exerts approximately 70% of the pressure exerted when applied alone, thus challenging the commonly-held assumption that the final pressure achieved by a multi-layer bandaging system is the sum of the pressures exerted by each individual layer. Each of the four bandaging systems exerted different final pressures and gradients and different changes with posture change. These differences have important implications, which could influence the selection (or avoidance) of a particular bandage system according to a patient's condition and circumstances.
A quantitative method for the evaluation of ulcer healing has been developed. The method consists of calculating an ulcer healing efficiency ratio (zetaz) interpreted as the second derivative of the regenerated ulcer area over time. The zetaz value is in direct proportion to the acceleration of healing, and in inverse proportion to the initial ulcer area. In order to test this method, we measured the surface area that was delimited by the ulcer edge and the initial depth of the ulcer in three patient groups. The first and third groups were treated with a cellulose membrane and the second group-with Unna boot. The initial ulcer area was the same in groups 1 and 2, but in group 3, it was six times smaller. The greatest zetaz value was obtained in group 3, the smallest-in group two.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.