Comparison of piezoresistive sensor to PicoPress® in in-vitro interface pressure measurement

Abstract

Objective Interface pressure, the sine qua non for compression therapy, is rarely measured in clinical practice and scientific research. The goal of this study aimed to compare and examine the accuracy between a commercially available piezoresistive sensor and PicoPress® (Microlab, Padua, Italy) using the cylinder cuff model to measure in-vitro interface pressure. Method Ten piezoresistive sensors were calibrated using the National Institute of Standard and Technology certified manometer, and compared to PicoPress® using cylinder cuff model from 20 to 120 mmHg. Two statistical analyses were performed: (a) two-sample t-test to compare the front to back surface of the piezoresistive sensors using mean pressure value and (b) one-sample paired t-test to compare the front and back surface of the piezoresistive sensors to PicoPress® and true pressure using mean pressure value. Result There was no difference in interface pressure measurement between the front and back surface of the piezoresistive sensors (P > 0.05). Using mean pressure value, there was no significant difference between the front surface, back surface of the piezoresistive sensors, and PicoPress® (P > 0.05). Standard deviation was larger for the piezoresistive sensors than PicoPress® at any given pressure and this difference was more pronounced in the higher pressure range. Conclusion Piezoresistive sensor may represent a viable alternative to PicoPress® in interface pressure measurement.

Comparison of three pressure monitors used to measure interface pressure under compression bandages

“…Chi et al 9 compared and examined the accuracy between a piezoresistive sensor and PP using the cylinder cuff model to measure in vitro interface pressure. A piezoresistive sensor might represent a viable alternative to PP in interface pressure measurement, but the standard deviation was larger for the piezoresistive sensors than PP at any given pressure, especially in the higher pressure range.…”

“…However, few studies have evaluated or compared the metrological properties of these systems, particularly their accuracy. [8][9][10][11][12] Partsch and Mosti 13 compared PicoPress V R (Microlab, Padua, Italy) with Kikuhime V R (Meditrade, Soro, Denmark), and SIGaT tester V R (Ganzoni-Sigvaris, St. Gallen, Switzerland) and concluded that PicoPress was the most accurate with the least variation and error. Unfortunately, these devices' limitations make them impractical for studying change in interface pressure over several days of wearing compression bandages.…”

Effect of subsurface pressure on the interface pressure measurement in an in vitro experiment

“…The larger the deformation, the higher the pressure. This decrease in resistance was captured by a readout circuitry consisted of an analog to digital converter, microprocessor and Bluetooth V R transmission module for data acquisition and wireless transmission to a mobile device previously described by Chi et al 5 (Figure 2). All signals were ultimately converted to pressure (mmHg).…”

Update on innovation and compliance measurement in compression therapy

“…The mechanism of pressure sensing has been previously published using piezoresistive sensing principle. 4 It is a larger size device enclosed in a plastic case, 41.5x13.5 mm, and can be miniaturized and sewn into the seams of compression stockings similar to Thermotrack®.…”