Introduction: Elastic compression stockings exerting a progressive pressure, higher at the calf than at the ankle (progressive elastic compression stockings, PECS), have already proved to be more comfortable, easier to put on and more effective in improving venous pumping function compared to graduated compression elastic stockings (GECS). Nevertheless, PECS could have a negative effect on the prevention and treatment of oedema or even favour oedema formation. The aim of the present study was to investigate if, in normal volunteers, PECS are able to prevent leg swelling during their working shift. Methods: A total of 30 normal volunteers (14 males, 16 females aged 36.4 +/- 6.6 years) staying standing or sitting during their shift were enrolled into the study. Their leg volume was measured at the beginning and at the end of their working shift on 2 consecutive days. On one day, the volunteers did not put on any stockings; on the other day, they wore GECS on one leg and PECS on the other. The difference between the leg volume measured at the end of the shift and the basal volume in the morning was called 'occupational oedema'. Interface pressure at points B1 and C was measured immediately after stockings' application and before removal. The volunteers were asked to report about difficulty of putting on the stockings and comfort during wearing time. The results were submitted to statistical analysis. Results: The GECS and PECS groups had similar baseline leg volumes (3143 vs. 3154 ml) and occupational oedema (134 vs. 137.5 ml); after putting on the stockings, occupational oedema was reduced in both legs but the reduction was significantly greater with PECS (20 vs. 40 ml with GECS) (P < 0.05). Interface pressure at ankle level is higher with GECS both in supine and in standing position while at calf level it is higher with PECS both in supine and standing position. PECS are easier to put on and slightly more comfortable. Conclusion: PECS are easier to put on and more comfortable and produce a significantly higher reduction of occupational oedema compared with GECS in normal volunteers. Nevertheless leg volumetry, providing a global leg-volume evaluation, is not able to localise the oedema reduction end to assess if it occurs more in the calf or the ankle area. Theoretically, despite a global volume reduction, PECS could even promote a slight oedema formation at ankle level over-compensated by a greater oedema reduction at calf level. Further studies need to concentrate on patients with venous disease and on the local distribution of this global effect. (C) 2013 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
