Interface pressure measurement in the treatment of pressure sores

Hu, Völker; Rölker, N.; Willy, Christian

doi:10.1007/s00101-005-0942-y

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…28 Measurement error and hysteresis are summarized in Table 11. For accuracy, FSA sensor is identical (Flexiforce, F-Socket) or even better (Rincoe, Lu¨ck, F-Scan) than other pressure mapping systems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Metrological results of other sensors have been collected from the literature: Flexiforce ©,22 F-Socket ©25 and F-Scan ©21 sensors from Tekscan, Rincoe’s sensor 25 and Lück sensor. 28 Measurement error and hysteresis are summarized in Table 11. For accuracy, FSA sensor is identical (Flexiforce, F-Socket) or even better (Rincoe, Lück, F-Scan) than other pressure mapping systems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is also possible, according to data from the literature, to compare the FSA sensors with other types of pressure mapping systems for measuring interface pressure: the X-Sensor capacitive pressure mapping system 21,28,29 and Novel distributed sensors. 23 For linearity, the X-Sensor is linear 29 and measures 75.1% of the applied pressure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Between mapping system A: from above and mapping system B: from the bottom 0.010 0.43 0.038 Between mapping system C: from above and mapping system D: from the bottom 0.0041 0.015 0.0058 the X-Sensor capacitive pressure mapping system 21,28,29 and Novel distributed sensors. 23 For linearity, the X-Sensor is linear 29 and measures 75.1% of the applied pressure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The maximum measurement error for X-Sensor is 65% of applied pressure or 27 mmHg. 28 Novel's sensor demonstrates a superior performance: its linear coefficient is 0.997 and the measurement error is less than 1 mmHg. 23 But capacitive sensors have a greater hysteresis than resistive sensors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Characterization of a pressure measuring system for the evaluation of medical devices

Bonnaire

Verhaeghe

Molimard

et al. 2014

Proc Inst Mech Eng H

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the possible use of four "FSA" thin and flexible resistive pressure mapping systems, designed by Vista Medical (Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada), for the measurement of interface pressure exerted by lumbar belts onto the trunk. These sensors were originally designed for the measurement of low pressure applied by medical devices on the skin. Two types of tests were performed: standard metrology tests such as linearity, hysteresis, repeatability, reproducibility and drift, and specific tests for this application such as curvature, surface condition and mapping system superposition. The linear regression coefficient is between 0.86 and 0.98; hysteresis is between 6.29% and 9.41%. Measurements are repeatable. The location, time and operator, measurement surface condition and mapping system superposition have a statistically significant influence on the results. A stable measure is verified over the period defined in the calibration procedure, but unacceptable drift is observed afterward. The measurement stays suitable on a curved surface for an applied pressure above 50 mmHg. To conclude, the sensor has acceptable linearity, hysteresis and repeatability. Calibration must be adapted to avoid drift. Moreover, when comparing different measurements with this sensor, the location, the time, the operator and the measurement surface condition should not change; the mapping system must not be superimposed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%