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

Yung-wei Chi, Kuo Hao Tseng, Ruya Li, Tingrui Pan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalPhlebology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2017

Fingerprint

Pressure
In Vitro Techniques
Italy
Technology
Research

Keywords

  • chronic venous disorder
  • compression therapy
  • Interface pressure
  • manometry sensor
  • piezoresistive sensor

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Comparison of piezoresistive sensor to PicoPress® in in-vitro interface pressure measurement. / Chi, Yung-wei; Tseng, Kuo Hao; Li, Ruya; Pan, Tingrui.

In: Phlebology, 01.01.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9e24bb2c1aa44c27ac2e38d5cb7e9758,
title = "Comparison of piezoresistive sensor to PicoPress{\circledR} 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{\circledR} (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{\circledR} 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{\circledR} 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{\circledR} (P > 0.05). Standard deviation was larger for the piezoresistive sensors than PicoPress{\circledR} 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{\circledR} in interface pressure measurement.",
keywords = "chronic venous disorder, compression therapy, Interface pressure, manometry sensor, piezoresistive sensor",
author = "Yung-wei Chi and Tseng, {Kuo Hao} and Ruya Li and Tingrui Pan",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0268355517705292",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Phlebology",
issn = "1433-3031",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of piezoresistive sensor to PicoPress® in in-vitro interface pressure measurement

AU - Chi, Yung-wei

AU - Tseng, Kuo Hao

AU - Li, Ruya

AU - Pan, Tingrui

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - chronic venous disorder

KW - compression therapy

KW - Interface pressure

KW - manometry sensor

KW - piezoresistive sensor

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041895146&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041895146&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0268355517705292

DO - 10.1177/0268355517705292

M3 - Article

C2 - 28429632

AN - SCOPUS:85041895146

JO - Phlebology

JF - Phlebology

SN - 1433-3031

ER -