Prospective, randomized study of the efficacy of pressure garment therapy in patients with burns.

A randomized, prospective study was undertaken to determine the efficacy of pressure garment therapy in patients with burns. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either pressure garment therapy or no pressure garment therapy. Patients were observed by use of the Vancouver Burn Scar Assessment Scale to assess the maturity of all involved areas. One hundred and twenty-two consecutive patients were enrolled in the study; 64 were assigned to pressure garment therapy and 58 to no pressure garment therapy. Eight of the patients receiving pressure garment therapy and nine receiving no pressure garment therapy were not involved in the follow-up. No significant differences were found between the two groups when age, body surface area burn, length of hospital stay, or time to wound maturation were compared.

Prospective randomized comparison of two types of pressure therapy garments.

A prospective randomized study was undertaken to compare compliance efficacy and cost of the elastic nylon pressure garment (Jobst Institute, Inc., Toledo, Ohio) with the cotton elastic pressure garment (Tubigrip, SePro Healthcare Inc., Montgomeryville, Penn.). Of 110 patients enrolled, 54 received Jobst pressure garments and 56 received Tubigrip pressure garments. Time spent in pressure-therapy garments was the same for both groups. Comparable clinical results were achieved with either Tubigrip or Jobst garments. A significantly greater percentage of patients were compliant with Tubigrip pressure-garment therapy than with Jobst pressure-garment therapy. The cost of the Tubigrip garments was significantly lower than that of Jobst garments. These data suggest that the use of elasticized cotton pressure garments results in significantly better patient compliance, a lower cost, and equal therapeutic efficacy when compared with the elasticized nylon pressure garments.