The LDI Enigma Part II: Indeterminate depth burns, man or machine?

INTRODUCTION: Laser Doppler imaging is universally considered the most evidence-based method for objective burn depth assessment by accurately predicting burn wound healing potential. This study has analyzed how exactly laser Doppler imaging measurements can be useful in the early therapeutic decision making for patients with clinically indeterminate depth burns. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An extensive survey, by questionnaire and in-depth interviews, was conducted among 51 burn centers worldwide to gain insight on the practical use of laser Doppler imaging. RESULTS: Twenty-seven (53%) of the 51 burn centers contacted almost completely answered the 32 questions. Fifty-two percent of these centers (14/27) had at least 10 years of laser Doppler imaging experience. laser Doppler imaging was considered to be mainly or almost completely accurate by 89%. In case of discrepancy between clinical assessment and LDI, 41% relied more on clinical diagnosis, 25% delayed decision to operate, while 16% re-scanned the next day. The centers most experienced with laser Doppler imaging (13%) relied on it more. Final decisions for treatment were based on the combination of laser Doppler imaging and clinical assessment by 74%. Seventy percent of the centers almost never operated burns with laser Doppler imaging-red and would almost always operate burns with LDI-blue. Treatment decisions for intermediate laser Doppler imaging colors (pink, yellow and green) varied, with 76% basing decisions on other factors: % Total Body Surface Area (TBSA), general health, age, location of the burn, potential for colonization/infection, patient preference, compliance with aftercare, logistics, and socio-economic factors. CONCLUSION: Laser Doppler imaging reduces the number of clinical indeterminate depth burns. For these intermediate depth burns on laser Doppler imaging, treatment decisions are based on a combination of interpretation ('man') and laser Doppler imaging measurements ('machine'). Thorough knowledge of confounding factors and validated laser Doppler imaging color code, consideration of surrounding laser Doppler imaging colors, the use of mean flux values, and not directly burn related factors are essential. Burn centers with most laser Doppler imaging experience considered laser Doppler imaging an indispensable diagnostic tool.

The LDI Enigma, Part I: So much proof, so little use.

INTRODUCTION: Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) is still not an ubiquitous part of burn care worldwide despite reported accuracy rates of more than 95%, which is significantly higher than clinical assessment alone (50-75%). The aims of Part I of this survey study are: to identify the most important barriers for the use of LDI and to provide useful recommendations for efficient implementation in routine burn care. The actual interpretation and use of LDI measurements is discussed in the Enigma Part II article. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 1. Informative interviews with 15 representatives of burn centers without LDI. 2. A survey among 51 burn centers with LDI by means of an extensive questionnaire. 3. In-depth interviews with 21 of the participating centers. RESULTS: 1. All 15 centers without LDI indicated that cost of purchase in combination with maintenance of the LDI device, as well as personnel costs were the reason for not buying, while 12 (80%) also rated the current scientific evidence as insufficient. 2. Twenty-seven burn centers with an LDI (53%) participated and filled in almost the entire questionnaire. In 5 centers, cost delayed the purchase of LDI. The hospital/department paid for the LDI device in 62% of the burn centers and in 88% also for maintenance and salaries. The LDI operators were mainly surgeons (47%) or nurses (42%). In more than half of the burn centers (52%), between 2 and 5 people were trained and certified to use an LDI. In 50% of burn centers, the interpretation of the LDI scan was done by the same person doing the actual measurements. Eighty-nine percent of the burn centers considered the accuracy of the LDI scan as mainly to almost completely accurate. In case of real discrepancy between clinical diagnosis and LDI, in 48% of the burn centers (13/27) the surgeon still relied more on the clinical diagnosis despite reporting this high or almost complete accuracy rate of the LDI. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers for the routine implementation of LDI were: 1. cost of purchasing and using an LDI combined with health care systems that inadequately reimburse non-surgical management; 2. lack of awareness of or ongoing skepticism towards the scientific evidence supporting LDI use; and 3. organizational constraints combined with logistical limitations. Our recommendations for wider use of LDI technology include: 1. a cost-effective reimbursement of LDI use combined with a more appropriate valuation of expert conservative management compared to surgical therapy; 2. increased use of LDI for every mixed depth burn and; 3. specialized LDI teams to improve burn procedural flexibility and to enable embedding LDI use in the burn care routine. Implementing these measures would promote the highest standards for LDI measurements and interpretation resulting in optimal care with mutual benefits for the hospital, for burn care teams and, most importantly, for the patients.

Male-to-Female Gender Confirmation Surgery: Intestinal Vaginoplasty.

The major steps in vaginoplasty are orchiectomy, penile amputation, creation of the neovaginal cavity with lining, and reconstruction of urethral meatus, labia, and clitoris. During pedicled intestinal transfer, an intestinal segment is transferred in a dissected cavity between the bladder and rectum. The bowel harvest is performed by a total laparoscopic technique. It is imperative to create the labia majora and minora, the clitoris, and a clitoral hood to achieve the physiologic and aesthetic equivalent of female external genitalia. Intestinal vaginoplasty seems to be associated with a low rate of adverse events. Life-long vaginal hygiene and dilatation is recommended.