Compression Stockings and Rubber Floor Mats

Abstract

Chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) is a burden to many workers, especially to those with a standing profession. Preventive measures are seldom taken. A quasirandomized parallel group trial was performed in 114 male workers with CVI and a standing profession. For 3 months, class II compression stockings or rubber floor mats were used vs controls. Outcome measures were diurnal volume changes (leg swelling) and complaints of the lower legs. With the stockings, a significant decrease in complaints was found, as well as a significant decrease in leg swelling. Rubber mats were often not suitable for hygienic and safety reasons. The decrease in complaints in the group using rubber mats was less pronounced, and leg swelling did not differ from that of the control group. Compression stockings appeared to be superior to rubber mats with regard to applicability, diminishing subjective complaints, and decrease of diurnal leg swelling.

Effects of Compression Hosiery in Female Workers with a Standing Profession

“…In their study of male workers in The Netherlands Krijnen et ai. [3][4][5] found undetected CVI in 29% of the population that they examined. Of those without CVI, 63% claimed leg complaints.…”

“…Graduated compression is able to prevent many of these events, as well as reducing subjective complaints such as leg tiredness and heaviness. The role of graduated compression stockings in male workers with CVl has recently been studied [3][4][5], providing evidence for reduced swelling and a decrease in complaints.…”

Improving Adherence to Wearing Compression Stockings for Chronic Venous Insufficiency and Venous Leg Ulcers: A Scoping Review

“…(b) Domains: Most studies reported exclusively on adherence in terms of compression wear alone, while some had a broader definition which included, for example, attendance at appointments, wound care, exercise, and leg elevation. 41,60,61 (c) Scales: Of those who provided an adherence rate (N=30), most (N=18) 12,16,44,45,[56][57][58]60,62,63,68,73,74,[77][78][79][80][81] documented whether their participants were adherent or not adherent as a dichotomous score. That is, participants either followed the prescribed wearing protocol or not.…”

“…However, Franks 52 study investigating VLU recurrence rates in patients wearing either of two different brands of stockings considered a participant adherent if they "wore their stockings all day every day", 52 demonstrating a much more arduous wearing regime required for their study participants to be classified as "adherent". (e) Measurement: Eight studies 9,30,44,45,60,72,78,81 relied purely on observation by a clinician (nurses or physicians), while 15 studies 12,16,38,41,51,52,61,62,69,70,73,74,79,80,82 relied on patient self-report delivered either verbally or via questionnaire or journal. Three studies 57,71,77 used a combination of observation and self-report.…”

Corrigendum to “Comparison of Physiological Effects Induced by Two Compression Stockings and Regular Socks During Prolonged Standing Work”

“…Some benefits were observed for stockings compression ranging from 7 to 15 mmHg (Kraemer et al, 2000) and 11 to 21 mmHg (Blazek et al, 2013;Partsch et al, 2004), whereas others also found benefits in stockings with compression pressure higher than 20 mmHg (Quilici Belczak et al, 2018;Steinhilber et al, 2018) or up to 30 mmHg (Krijnen et al, 1997). However, the use of high-pressure compression stockings had led to more complaints regarding tightness and skin irritation (Kankam et al, 2018;Krijnen et al, 1997) but not for graduated compression <20 mmHg (Gianesini et al, 2020). Thus, differences between lower and higher compression pressure must be clarified before compression stocking can be…”