Laser Doppler imaging determines need for excision and grafting in advance of clinical judgment: a prospective blinded trial

A new, fast LDI for assessment of burns: A multi-centre clinical evaluation

“…An overall accuracy of 94.2% was found for LDLS when compared with healing records in 321 cases; this level of accuracy correlates with published results for the moorLDI2-BI device [15][16][17][18][19]22,23]. With the additional 198 cases from comparison with LDI2, but excluding cases used for scalar derivation, the overall agreement between LDLS and LDI2 was 95.4% for HP14, 94.2% for HP14-21 and 98.5% for HP > 21.…”

“…It was also reported that use of LDI resulted in a reduction of both costs and workload [15] and that LDI enabled earlier and more objective determination of the need to excise and graft burns [16]. In a further study, additional assessments at several postburn days showed the accuracies for LDI were 95-97% compared to 52.5-71.4% for clinical evaluation at day 3 and day 5 post-burn respectively [17].…”

A comparison of non-invasive imaging modalities: Infrared thermography, spectrophotometric intracutaneous analysis and laser Doppler imaging for the assessment of adult burns

“…This may lead to the burn appearing falsely deep. In addition Jeng et al, who used a similar technique to select ROIs for image interpretation based on clinical assessment, identified that surrounding areas of hyperaemia skewed their numerical interpretation of LDI flux, creating ''median error'' [38]. Our methods used to define a ROI should therefore be acknowledged as a potential source of error in our quantitative analysis of LDI and IRT.…”

Diagnostic accuracy of laser Doppler imaging in burn depth assessment: Systematic review and meta-analysis

“…The recently developed LDI system provides a less time-consuming, noninvasive measurement that can estimate blood flow over a large burn area. Use of LDI in burn patients has resulted in many improvements, such as reduced length of hospital stay, lower rates of operative interventions, shorter decision making times for grafting procedures, and cost reduction [4, 10,11].…”