Beckman Laser Institute and Medical Clinic, University of California, 1002 Health Sciences Road East, Irvine, CA 92617, United States.
United States Army Institute of Surgical Research, 3650 Chambers Pass, Fort Sam Houston, TX, 78234, United States.
Burns. 2019 Mar;45(2):450-460. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2018.09.026. Epub 2018 Oct 14.
While clinical examination is needed for burn severity diagnosis, several emerging technologies aim to quantify this process for added objectivity. Accurate assessments become easier after burn progression, but earlier assessments of partial thickness burn depth could lead to earlier excision and grafting and subsequent improved healing times, reduced rates of scarring/infection, and shorter hospital stays. Spatial Frequency Domain Imaging (SFDI), Laser Speckle Imaging (LSI) and thermal imaging are three non-invasive imaging modalities that have some diagnostic ability for noninvasive assessment of burn severity, but have not been compared in a controlled experiment. Here we tested the ability of these imaging techniques to assess the severity of histologically confirmed graded burns in a swine model. Controlled, graded burn wounds, 3cm in diameter were created on the dorsum of Yorkshire pigs (n=3, 45-55kg) using a custom-made burn tool that ensures consistent pressure has been employed by various burn research groups. For each pig, a total of 16 burn wounds were created on the dorsal side. Biopsies were taken for histological analysis to verify the severity of the burn. Clinical analysis, SFDI, LSI and thermal imaging were performed at 24 and 72h after burn to assess the accuracy of each imaging technique. In terms of diagnostic accuracy, using histology as a reference, SFDI (85%) and clinical analysis (83%) performed significantly better that LSI (75%) and thermography (73%) 24h after the burn. There was no statistically significant improvement from 24 to 72h across the different imaging modalities. These data indicate that these imaging modalities, and specifically SFDI, can be added to the burn clinicians' toolbox to aid in early assessment of burn severity.
虽然临床检查对于烧伤严重程度的诊断是必要的,但有几种新兴技术旨在为其提供更客观的量化方法。在烧伤进展后,准确评估变得更加容易,但早期评估部分厚度烧伤深度可能会导致更早地进行切除和植皮,从而缩短愈合时间,减少疤痕/感染的发生率,并缩短住院时间。空间频率域成像(SFDI)、激光散斑成像(LSI)和热成像技术是非侵入性成像方式,具有一定的非侵入性评估烧伤严重程度的诊断能力,但尚未在对照实验中进行比较。在这里,我们测试了这些成像技术在猪模型中评估经组织学证实的分级烧伤严重程度的能力。使用一种定制的烧伤工具在约克夏猪(n=3,体重 45-55kg)的背部创建直径为 3cm 的受控分级烧伤创面,该工具确保了不同烧伤研究小组采用了一致的压力。对于每头猪,总共在背部创建了 16 个烧伤创面。采集活检标本进行组织学分析以验证烧伤的严重程度。在烧伤后 24 和 72 小时进行临床分析、SFDI、LSI 和热成像,以评估每种成像技术的准确性。就诊断准确性而言,使用组织学作为参考,SFDI(85%)和临床分析(83%)的表现明显优于 LSI(75%)和热成像(73%)在烧伤后 24 小时。在不同的成像方式之间,从 24 小时到 72 小时没有统计学上的显著改善。这些数据表明,这些成像方式,特别是 SFDI,可以添加到烧伤临床医生的工具包中,以帮助早期评估烧伤的严重程度。