1. Oral Abstract presentation Comparison of piezoresistive to pneumatic sensor in interface pressure measurement for chronic venous disorder management
Kuo-Hao Tseng BS, Ruya Li PhD, Tingrui Pan PhD, Yung-Wei Chi DO
Department of Biomedical Engineering and School of Medicine
University of California, Davis
Good morning everyone. I am here to present you some results we have by compare piezoresistive to pneumatic sensor in interface pressure measurement for chronic venous disorder management.
I am Kuo-Hao Tseng (Howard) from UC Davis Biomedical Engineering department and Dr. Chi is from vascular center at UC Davis.

2. Disclosure
The authors have no financial disclosure related to this oral abstract presentation

3. Introduction Objectives:
9/15/2018
Compression therapy is the foundation of chronic venous disorder management, and interface pressure is the key to quantify such therapy
Objectives:
Compare mechanical performance of the front to back surface of a piezoresistive sensor
Compare mechanical performance of front and back surfaces of a piezoresistive sensor to Picopress™
Compression therapy is the primary therapeutic modality to heal venous leg ulceration.

4. Introduction – Piezoresistive sensor
Principle of piezoresistive (PR) sensor: when external pressure is applied, it deforms the PET membrane and causes decrease in overall resistance
Front surface consisted of silver ink pattern and back surface has no carbon ink pattern.

5. Objective A
Compare mechanical performance of the front to back surface of a piezoresistive sensor
Is there any differences between front and back surfaces of a piezoresistive sensor due to material differences?
Is there any differences between front an back of piezoresistive sensor due to structure differences?
Front and back surfaces of a piezoresistive sensor

6. Objective B
Compare mechanical performance of front and back surfaces of a piezoresistive sensor to Picopress™
Picopress™
Piezoresistive sensor

7. Hypothesis Objective A:
There is no significant difference in mechanical performance of the front to back surface of a piezoresistive sensor
Objective B:
There is no significant difference in mechanical performance of the front and back surfaces of piezoresistive sensor to the performance of Picopress™

8. piezoresistive sensor Pneumatic pressure cuff
Method: System set up
Pico press™
piezoresistive sensor
Pneumatic pressure cuff
Air pump
Testing setup

9. Method: Wireless data collection
Interface circuitry with Bluetooh Module (BLU)
Mobile device with user interface
Piezoresistive sensor

10. Result: Objective A
There is complete overlap of mean pressure value between the front and back surfaces of the PR sensor demonstrating no significant difference between the two, p>0.05

11. Result- Objective B
There is overlap of mean pressure value between the front, back surfaces of the PR sensor and Picopress™ demonstrating no significance difference between the three, p>0.05

12. Conclusion
There is no performance difference between the front surface, back surface of PR sensor, and Picopress™ during pressure application

13. Acknowledgement Dr. Yung-Wei Chi (DO)
School of Medicine and Vascular Center
University of California, Davis
Dr. Tingrui Pan (Ph.D)
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Dr. Ruya Li (Ph.D)
Department of Electrical and Computer Science Engineering University of California, Davis