Abstract：
BACKGROUND: During prolonged standing, insufficient calf muscle pumping accompanies venous stasis and hypertension in the lower legs, resulting in valve dysfunction, venous wall problems, and sub-sequent inflammation. Compression therapy, which includes medical compression stockings (MCS) and mechanical intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC), is one of the most effective therapeutic interventions for treating chronic venous diseases. This study aimed to compare the therapeutic effect among resting, IPC and MCS alone, and IPC with MCS in long-standing workers (> 8 h daily).
METHODS: This crossover trial was conducted with 39 participants with complaints of leg edema and pain whose work involved standing for more than 8 h daily. Four treatment protocols were established for each visit as follows: protocol A (not wear MCS during work and rest without IPC after work), protocol B (wear MCS during work and rest without IPC after work), protocol C (not wear MCS during work and treat with IPC after work), and protocol D (wear MCS during work and treat with IPC after work). The primary outcome was the visual analogue scale (VAS) score for leg pain. The secondary outcomes were leg volume (mL), circumference (cm), extracellular fluid/total body fluid (ECF/TBF), and extracellular water/total body water (ECW/TBW) through bioelectrical impedance analysis. Outcomes were assessed before work (T0), after work (T1), and 60 min after intervention (T2).
RESULTS: All four protocols had significantly increased leg pain after work (T0-1) but improved 60 min after intervention (T1-2), particularly protocol C (decreased VAS by 1.9). When leg swelling was compared at T0 and T1, protocols A and C showed significant increases in leg volume and circumference, indicating significant work-induced edema, whereas protocols B and D showed no change or even a decrease. After interventions, leg volume and circumference significantly decreased in protocols A and C, although protocols B and C did not show significant improvement. The ECF/TBF and ECW/TBW of all protocols decreased after interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: Leg pain and edema after prolonged standing (T1-T2) in adults were safely and effectively improved by both IPC alone and IPC with MCS. Although the use of MCS during the workday did not show improvement in leg pain immediately after work (T0-T1), both MCS with resting and MCS with IPC decreased leg pain at T1-T2 and prevented leg edema at T0-T1.
BACKGROUND: This trial protocol was registered at the Clinical Research Information Service (KCT0005383, the date of first registration: 08/09/2020).
METHODS: This crossover trial was conducted with 39 participants with complaints of leg edema and pain whose work involved standing for more than 8 h daily. Four treatment protocols were established for each visit as follows: protocol A (not wear MCS during work and rest without IPC after work), protocol B (wear MCS during work and rest without IPC after work), protocol C (not wear MCS during work and treat with IPC after work), and protocol D (wear MCS during work and treat with IPC after work). The primary outcome was the visual analogue scale (VAS) score for leg pain. The secondary outcomes were leg volume (mL), circumference (cm), extracellular fluid/total body fluid (ECF/TBF), and extracellular water/total body water (ECW/TBW) through bioelectrical impedance analysis. Outcomes were assessed before work (T0), after work (T1), and 60 min after intervention (T2).
RESULTS: All four protocols had significantly increased leg pain after work (T0-1) but improved 60 min after intervention (T1-2), particularly protocol C (decreased VAS by 1.9). When leg swelling was compared at T0 and T1, protocols A and C showed significant increases in leg volume and circumference, indicating significant work-induced edema, whereas protocols B and D showed no change or even a decrease. After interventions, leg volume and circumference significantly decreased in protocols A and C, although protocols B and C did not show significant improvement. The ECF/TBF and ECW/TBW of all protocols decreased after interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: Leg pain and edema after prolonged standing (T1-T2) in adults were safely and effectively improved by both IPC alone and IPC with MCS. Although the use of MCS during the workday did not show improvement in leg pain immediately after work (T0-T1), both MCS with resting and MCS with IPC decreased leg pain at T1-T2 and prevented leg edema at T0-T1.
BACKGROUND: This trial protocol was registered at the Clinical Research Information Service (KCT0005383, the date of first registration: 08/09/2020).
摘要：
背景：长时间站立时，小腿肌肉抽血不足伴随着下肢静脉淤滞和高血压，导致瓣膜功能障碍，静脉壁问题,和随之而来的炎症。压迫疗法,其中包括医用压缩长袜（MCS）和机械间歇气动压缩（IPC），是治疗慢性静脉疾病最有效的治疗干预措施之一。本研究旨在比较静息之间的治疗效果，单独使用IPC和MCS，和IPC与MCS在长期工人（每天>8小时）。
方法：这项交叉试验是对39名患有腿部水肿和疼痛的参与者进行的，他们的工作涉及每天站立超过8小时。为每次访问建立四个治疗方案如下：方案A（在工作和休息期间不佩戴MCS，工作后不使用IPC），协议B（工作后在不使用IPC的情况下，在工作和休息期间佩戴MCS），方案C(工作时不穿MCS,工作后用IPC处理),和方案D（工作期间磨损MCS，工作后用IPC处理）。主要结果是腿部疼痛的视觉模拟评分（VAS）评分。次要结果是腿部体积（mL），周长(cm),细胞外液/总体液（ECF/TBF），通过生物电阻抗分析和细胞外水/全身水(ECW/TBW)。工作前评估结果(T0)，下班后（T1），和干预后60分钟（T2）。
结果：所有四种方案均在工作后（T0-1）明显加重腿部疼痛，但在干预后60分钟（T1-2）改善，特别是方案C（VAS降低1.9）。当在T0和T1比较腿部肿胀时，方案A和C显示腿部体积和周长显著增加，表明明显的工作引起的水肿，而方案B和D没有变化甚至减少。干预后,在方案A和方案C中，腿部体积和周长显着降低，尽管方案B和C没有显着改善。干预后所有方案的ECF/TBF和ECW/TBW均下降。
结论：成人长时间站立（T1-T2）后的腿部疼痛和水肿通过单独IPC和IPC与MCS安全有效地改善。尽管在工作日使用MCS并没有显示出工作后立即（T0-T1）的腿部疼痛的改善，静息MCS和IPCMCS均可减轻T1-T2时的腿部疼痛，并可预防T0-T1时的腿部水肿。
背景：该试验方案已在临床研究信息服务处注册（KCT0005383，首次注册日期：2020年9月8日）。
方法：这项交叉试验是对39名患有腿部水肿和疼痛的参与者进行的，他们的工作涉及每天站立超过8小时。为每次访问建立四个治疗方案如下：方案A（在工作和休息期间不佩戴MCS，工作后不使用IPC），协议B（工作后在不使用IPC的情况下，在工作和休息期间佩戴MCS），方案C(工作时不穿MCS,工作后用IPC处理),和方案D（工作期间磨损MCS，工作后用IPC处理）。主要结果是腿部疼痛的视觉模拟评分（VAS）评分。次要结果是腿部体积（mL），周长(cm),细胞外液/总体液（ECF/TBF），通过生物电阻抗分析和细胞外水/全身水(ECW/TBW)。工作前评估结果(T0)，下班后（T1），和干预后60分钟（T2）。
结果：所有四种方案均在工作后（T0-1）明显加重腿部疼痛，但在干预后60分钟（T1-2）改善，特别是方案C（VAS降低1.9）。当在T0和T1比较腿部肿胀时，方案A和C显示腿部体积和周长显著增加，表明明显的工作引起的水肿，而方案B和D没有变化甚至减少。干预后,在方案A和方案C中，腿部体积和周长显着降低，尽管方案B和C没有显着改善。干预后所有方案的ECF/TBF和ECW/TBW均下降。
结论：成人长时间站立（T1-T2）后的腿部疼痛和水肿通过单独IPC和IPC与MCS安全有效地改善。尽管在工作日使用MCS并没有显示出工作后立即（T0-T1）的腿部疼痛的改善，静息MCS和IPCMCS均可减轻T1-T2时的腿部疼痛，并可预防T0-T1时的腿部水肿。
背景：该试验方案已在临床研究信息服务处注册（KCT0005383，首次注册日期：2020年9月8日）。
