Comparison of intermittent pneumatic compression device and compression stockings for workers with leg edema and pain after prolonged standing: a prospective crossover clinical trial

• Published in: BMC musculoskeletal disorders Vol. 23; no. 1; pp. 1 - 1007
• Main Authors: Kim, Da-Sol, Won, Yu Hui, Ko, Myoung-Hwan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London BioMed Central Ltd 23.11.2022; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Analysis; Body water; Care and treatment; Causes of; Clinical trials; Compression; Compression stocking; Compression therapy; Diagnosis; Disease; Dropsy; Edema; Hairdressers; Health aspects; Hospitals; Impedance, Bioelectric; Intermittent pneumatic compression devices; Intervention; Leg; Medical equipment; Myalgia; Pain; Physiological aspects; Standing; Therapeutic applications; Thrombosis; Ultrasonic imaging; Veins & arteries; Workers; South Korea
• ISSN: 1471-2474; 1471-2474
• DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05975-6

Abstract Background During prolonged standing, insufficient calf muscle pumping accompanies venous stasis and hypertension in the lower legs, resulting in valve dysfunction, venous wall problems, and sub-sequent 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 compare the therapeutic effect among resting, IPC and MCS alone, and IPC with MCS in long-standing workers (> 8 h daily). Methods This crossover trial was conducted with 39 participants with complaints of leg edema and pain whose work involved standing for more than 8 h daily. Four treatment protocols were established for each visit as follows: protocol A (not wear MCS during work and rest without IPC after work), protocol B (wear MCS during work and rest without IPC after work), protocol C (not wear MCS during work and treat with IPC after work), and protocol D (wear MCS during work and treat with IPC after work). 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 bioelectrical impedance analysis. Outcomes were assessed before work (T0), after work (T1), and 60 min after intervention (T2). Results All four protocols had significantly increased leg pain after work (T0-1) but improved 60 min after intervention (T1-2), particularly protocol C (decreased VAS by 1.9). When leg swelling was compared at T0 and T1, protocols A and C showed significant increases in leg volume and circumference, indicating significant work-induced edema, whereas protocols B and D showed no change or even a decrease. After interventions, leg volume and circumference significantly decreased in protocols A and C, although protocols B and C did not show significant improvement. The ECF/TBF and ECW/TBW of all protocols decreased after interventions. Conclusions Leg pain and edema after prolonged standing (T1-T2) in adults were safely and effectively improved by both IPC alone and IPC with MCS. Although the use of MCS during the workday did not show improvement in leg pain immediately after work (T0-T1), both MCS with resting and MCS with IPC decreased leg pain at T1-T2 and prevented leg edema at T0-T1. Trial registration This trial protocol was registered at the Clinical Research Information Service (KCT0005383, the date of first registration: 08/09/2020).