El Masry Mohamed, Li Runjia, Balasubramani Goundappa K, Roy Sashwati, Sen Chandan K, Gnyawali Surya C
McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 408 Bridgeside Point II 450 Technology Drive, Pittsburgh, PA, 15219, USA.
Indiana Center for Regenerative Medicine and Engineering, Indiana University Health Comprehensive Wound Center, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Sci Rep. 2025 Aug 19;15(1):30424. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-15767-2.
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted critical limitations in conventional pulse oximetry, especially in diverse populations. This study evaluates the performance of noninvasive devices for assessing tissue oxygenation in a cohort of 20 healthy individuals, with a focus on device sensitivity, physiological and demographic variables. Tissue oxygenation was measured using devices: spatial frequency domain imaging (SFDI), transcutaneous oxygen measurement (TCOM), wearable photoplethysmography (WD), and pulse oximetry (PO) during baseline, ischemia, and reperfusion phases. Comparative analyses were performed across devices, sex and Fitzpatrick skin types. Among the four devices, SFDI uniquely detected significant differences in tissue oxygen saturation (StO), highlighting its sensitivity to tissue heterogeneity. PO and WD data showed moderate correlation (r = 0.44-0.59); SFDI and TCOM demonstrated fair correlation (r = 0.23-0.36). Although sex-based differences were minimal, the SFDI revealed significantly different recovery metrics. Notably, SFDI provided deeper insights into hemoglobin dynamics (HbO, dHb, HbP1, HbP2), which was not captured by point-measurement devices. Results demonstrated that SFDI offers superior spatial/spectral resolution for mapping tissue oxygenation, particularly in detecting skin-type variations. However, device-specific limitations such as motion artifacts and melanin interference necessitate further optimization. This work supports the development of more inclusive and accurate non-invasive monitoring tools for clinical use.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05784103.
新冠疫情凸显了传统脉搏血氧饱和度测定法的关键局限性，尤其是在不同人群中。本研究评估了20名健康个体队列中用于评估组织氧合的无创设备的性能，重点关注设备敏感性、生理和人口统计学变量。在基线、缺血和再灌注阶段，使用空间频域成像（SFDI）、经皮氧测量（TCOM）、可穿戴光电容积脉搏波描记法（WD）和脉搏血氧饱和度测定法（PO）等设备测量组织氧合。对各设备、性别和菲茨帕特里克皮肤类型进行了比较分析。在这四种设备中，SFDI独特地检测到了组织氧饱和度（StO）的显著差异，突出了其对组织异质性的敏感性。PO和WD数据显示出中等相关性（r = 0.44 - 0.59）；SFDI和TCOM显示出一般相关性（r = 0.23 - 0.36）。虽然基于性别的差异很小，但SFDI显示出显著不同的恢复指标。值得注意的是，SFDI提供了对血红蛋白动态（HbO、dHb、HbP1、HbP2）更深入的见解，这是点测量设备无法捕捉到的。结果表明，SFDI在绘制组织氧合图方面具有卓越的空间/光谱分辨率，特别是在检测皮肤类型差异方面。然而，诸如运动伪影和黑色素干扰等特定于设备的局限性需要进一步优化。这项工作支持开发更具包容性和准确性的临床无创监测工具。试验注册：ClinicalTrials.gov标识符NCT05784103。
