Review Article

A Systematic Review of the Evolution of Laser Doppler Techniques in Burn Depth Assessment

Table 2

Summary of retrieved studies in the literature.

Authors
country
YearType of studyPatient
Burns
Type of laser Doppler deviceSurgery neededFindingsLimitation

Green et al. [4],
USA
1988Observational Study1013LD flowmetry
Nonspecified type of LD scanner
6Statistically significant difference in LD value between healing and nonhealing groupLack of description of methodology of measurement

O’Reilly et al. [5],
USA
1989Prospective cohort
LD measurements did not influence clinical judgement
4159LD flowmetry
Laser flow blood perfusion monitor BPM403
8 LD < 1.4 PPV 98.4%, LD > 1.4 deemed superficial and will heal within 21 days43 > 1.4 LD burned areas excised and grafted
Day of measurement not specified

Waxman et al. [7],
USA
1989Prospective cohort
LDI within 48 h of burn
Indeterminate depth only
3351LD Flowmetry
Laser flow blood perfusion monitor BPM403
18100% specificity re: healing if flow >6 mL/100 g/min
NPV 75%
TBSA not specified

Niazi et al. [9],
UK
1993Prospective cohort
Burns of indeterminate depth
Children excluded
1313LD imaging
Newcastle laser Doppler scanner
7Good correlation of LDI with histological assessmentNo statistical analysis

Atiles et al. [8],
USA
1995Prospective cohort2186LD flowmetry
Perimed PF4000
33<40 PU; Sen: 0.46, Spec: 1.0, PPV: 1.0, NPV: 0.85
>80 PU; Sen: 0.85, Spec: 0.82, PPV: 0.79, NPV: 0.87
No histological assessment. No burn cause identified

Park et al. [10], Korea 1998Prospective cohort44100LD flowmetry
Periflux system 4001
Not specifiedPrimary outcome; healing at 2 weeks
>100 PU 90% PPV
10–100 PU 96% PPV
<10 100% PPV
Surgery not specified—just said not healed 2 weeks

Banwell et al. [11],
UK
1999Prospective cohort30n/aLD flowmetry and LD imaging
Moor LDI scanner
Not specifiedGood correlation LDI results and histologyNo stats

Pape et al. [12],
UK
2001Prospective cohort
Intermediate depth 48–72 h of presentation
4876LD imaging
Moor LDI scanner
2597% PPV of LDI compared with 70% of clinical assessment

Kloppenberg et al. [13],
Netherlands
2001Prospective cohort1622LD imaging
PIM 1.0 laser Doppler perfusion imager (Lisca development AB)
6Sensitivity 100% and specificity 93.8% on day 4 Invalid statistical analysis

Holland et al. [14],
Australia
2002Prospective cohort
Paediatric burns only 12 days cut-off point for healing
5757LD imaging
Moor LDI V 3.1
17Deep dermal; partial thickness
Clinical examination 66%
LDI 90%; clinical 71%, LDI 96%
Mobility of children
No validated endpoint

Jeng et al. [15],
USA
2003Prospective blinded trial
Burns of indeterminate depth
2341LD imaging
Moor LDI-VR
756% agreement between clinician and LDI
71.4% accuracy of surgeon compared to histological diagnosis
8/18 burns deemed superficial by LDI but required grafting

Mileski et al. [16],
USA
2003Prospective cohort56159LD flowmetry
PF 4001 laser Doppler flowmeter
53Sensitivity: 68%
Specificity: 88%
PPV: 81%
NPV: 76%
Clinical assessment once versus serial LDI

Riordan et al. [17],
USA
2003Prospective blinded trial
Surgeon blinded to LDI result
2235PIM #II LISCA24At threshold value of 1.3
Sensitivity: 95%
Specificity: 94%

La Hei et al. [18],
Australia
2006Prospective blinded trial
No clinical assessment done
Assessment by images and LDI only
3150LD imaging
Moor LDI V2
22Sensitivity: 97%
Specificity: 100%
Statistical analysis and small number

McGill et al. [19],
UK
2007Prospective blinded comparison2027LD imaging
Moor LDI
versus
PW Allen videomicroscope: transcutaneous microscopy
10LDI:
sensitivity 100%
VM:
sensitivity for SPT 100%
No histological assessment
Expert user of VM
VM not tolerated by children

Hoeksema et al. [20],
Belgium
2009Prospective blinded trial
Early assessment of burns using LDI Intermediate depths
Day 0, 1, 3, 5, 8, and 21
4040LD imaging
Moor LDI
12Sensitivity increases with days after burn. Statistically significantly better than clinical assessment from day 3
Sensitivity: 100%
Specificity: 92.3%
2 cases that required surgery and histology showed that burn wound was superficial in nature

Cho et al. [21],
Republic of Korea
2009Prospective cohort study
Paediatric burns Only burns of indeterminate depth
48–72 h
103181LD imaging
Periscan PIM 3
n/aHealing by 14 days at PU of 250 Sensitivity 80.6% and Specificity 76.9%No confirmation of superficial nature of burn with histology

Mill et al. [22],
Australia
2009Prospective cohort study
Paediatric burns Testing different effect of dressings
4885LD imaging
Moor LDI2
6Scans within 24 h accurately predict outcome
Colour palette corresponds to healing time. Cut-off of 14 days
No blinding
Wide range of scanning time 0–120 h

Kim et al. [23],
Australia
2010Case-control trial
Only patients requiring grafting
<16 years
196196LD imaging
Moor LDI2
196Reduction in decision for surgery in LDI group 8.9 days versus 11.6 days in control group ()No randomisation

Merz et al. [24],
Germany
2010Retrospective cohort study28173LD flowmetry
Laser Doppler O2C
88Sensitivity: 80.6%
Specificity: 88.2%
PPV: 93.1%
NPV: 69.8%
No histological assessment

Nguyen et al. [25],
Australia
2010Prospective cohort
Paediatric population Two groups; < and >48 h presentation
400637LD imaging
Moor LDI2-BI
89<48 h
Sensitivity: 78%
Specificity: 74%
>48 h
Sensitivity: 75%
Specificity 85%
No histological assessment in patients operated on

Lindahl et al. [26],
Sweden
2013Prospective cohort1445LD imaging
Laser Speckle contrast imager (Perimed AB)
n/aHigher perfusion in burns healing in less than 14 days compared to more than 14 days from day 0 from burn.Small sample of patients
No gold standard to compare to

Menon et al. [27],
Australia
2012Retrospective cohort
Friction burns in paediatric population
3636Not specified1264% accuracy of LDI predicting burn outcomeSmall sample of patients
No gold standard to compare to

Pape et al. [28],
Multicentre
2012Prospective cohort137433LD Imaging
Moor LDI
nsDevelopment of validated colour code for interpretation and link to burn outcome

Park et al. [29],
Korea
2013Retrospective cohort 96101LD imaging
Periscan PIM3 (Perimed AB)
46Cut-off point of 154.7PU
Sensitivity: 78.3
Specificity: 92.7

Stewart et al. [30],
Canada
2012Prospective blinded control trial38105LD imaging
Moor LDI 2-B1
64LDI has PPV > 90% accurate in determining need for grafting