Laser speckle contrast imaging, an alternative to laser doppler imaging in clinical practice of burn wound care derivation of a color code.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a color code and to investigate the validity of Laser Speckle Contrast Imaging (LSCI) for measuring burn wound healing potential (HP) in burn patients as compared to the reference standard Laser Doppler Imaging (LDI). METHOD: A prospective, observational, cohort study was conducted in adult patients with acute burn wounds. The relationship between mean flux measured with LDI and mean perfusion units (PU) measured with LSCI was expressed in a regression formula. Measurements were performed between 2 and 5 days after the burn wound. The creation of a LSCI color code was done by mapping the clinically validated color code of the LDI to the corresponding values on the LSCI scale. To assess validity of the LSCI, the ability of the LSCI to discriminate between HP < 14 and ≥ 14 days and HP < 21 and original ≥ 21 days according to the LDI reference standard was evaluated, with calculation of receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients were included with a median age of 40 years and total body surface area burned of 6%. LSCI values of 143 PU and 113 PU were derived as the cut-off values for the need of conservative treatment (HP < 14 and ≥ 14 days) resp. surgical closure (HP < 21 and ≥ 21 days). These LSCI cut off values showed a good discrimination between HP 14 days versus ≥ 14 days (Area Under Curve (AUC)= 0.89; sensitivity 85% and specificity = 82%) and a good discrimination between HP 21 days versus ≥ 21 days (AUC of 0.89, sensitivity 81% and specificity 88%). CONCLUSION: This is the first study in which a color code for the LSCI in adult clinical burn patients has been developed. Our study reconfirms the good performance of the LSCI for prediction of burn wound healing potential. This provides additional evidence for the potential value of the LSCI in specialized burn care.

Comparison of laser speckle contrast imaging with laser Doppler perfusion imaging for tissue perfusion measurement.

OBJECTIVE: Laser-based tissue perfusion monitoring techniques have been increasingly used in animal and human research to assess blood flow. However, these techniques use arbitrary units, and knowledge about their comparability is scarce. This study aimed to model the relationship between laser speckle contrast imaging (LSCI) and laser Doppler perfusion imaging (LDPI), for measuring tissue perfusion over a wide range of blood flux values. METHODS: Fifteen healthy volunteers (53% female, median age 29 [IQR 22-40] years) were enrolled in this study. We performed iontophoresis with sodium nitroprusside on the forearm to induce regional vasodilation to increase skin blood flux. Besides, a stepwise vascular occlusion was applied on the contralateral upper arm to reduce blood flux. Both techniques were compared using a linear mixed model analysis. RESULTS: Baseline blood flux values measured by LSCI were 33 ± 6.5 arbitrary unit (AU) (Coefficient of variation [CV] = 20%) and by LDPI 60 ± 11.5 AU (CV = 19%). At the end of the iontophoresis protocol, the regional blood flux increased to 724 ± 412% and 259 ± 87% of baseline measured by LDPI and LSCI, respectively. On the other hand, during the stepwise vascular occlusion test, the blood flux reduced to 212 ± 40% and 412 ± 177% of its baseline at LDPI and LSCI, respectively. A strong correlation was found between the LSCI and LDPI instruments at increased blood flux with respect to baseline skin blood flux; however, the correlation was weak at reduced blood flux with respect to baseline. DISCUSSION: LSCI and LDPI instruments are highly linear for blood flux higher than baseline skin blood flux; however, the correlation decreased for blood flux lower than baseline. This study's findings could be a basis for using LSCI in specific patient populations, such as burn care.

Parent-Reported Health-Related Quality of Life of Pediatric Burn Patients 5 to 7 Years after Burn Injuries: A Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric burns significantly impact the short-term health-related quality of life (HRQL) of children. Knowledge regarding the long-term impact is scarce. We therefore evaluated the parent-reported HRQL in pediatric burn patients 5 to 7 years after burns. METHODS: We invited parents of eligible children admitted to a Dutch Burn Center between August 2011 and September 2012. This sample was enriched with children with severe burns (> 10% of total body surface area [TBSA] burned) admitted between January 2010 and March 2013. The EQ-5D was completed by parents 5 to 7 years postburn. Outcomes and predictive factors were studied and compared between children with minor/moderate and severe burns. RESULTS: We included 130 children (mean TBSA burned 7%): 102 children with mild/intermediate burns and 28 with severe burns. Mean EQ-5D summary was 0.96 and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS) 93.1. These outcomes were significantly better in children with minor/moderate burns (0.97; 94.4) compared with children with severe burns (0.93; 88.3) (p < 0.05). Nineteen percent of the children with minor/moderate burns and 43% of those with severe burns reported any problems. The most frequently reported problem was anxiety/depression for both groups. Pain/discomfort (p = 0.012) and cognition (p = 0.035) were statistically significantly worse in children with severe burns compared with those with minor/moderate burns. Full thickness burns and number of surgeries were found to predict long-term HRQL impairment. CONCLUSION: Five to seven years postburn, the majority of children in our study (76%) did not experience long-term problems with HRQL. In a minority of the children, burns showed to have a prolonged negative impact, especially in those being severely burned and who had to undergo surgery for their burns. Most experienced problems were related to anxiety/depression. These important insights could be used to inform children and their parents about the expected long-term HRQL after pediatric burns.

Aetiology of severe burn incidents in children under 5 years of age in the Netherlands: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Risk factors and mechanisms of injury may change over time. Since knowledge on aetiology of severe burn incidents in children under 5 years of age in the Netherlands is outdated, this study aimed to identify current risk factors and mechanisms of severe burn injury in children under 5 years of age in the Netherlands to direct future prevention campaigns. METHODS: Information on personal-, environmental- and behavioural circumstances as well as the mechanism of burn injury was prospectively collected in all burn centres during one year from patient records and structured interviews with parents. RESULTS: Boys around 18 months of age, who, while in upright position, pulled down a cup of hot tea over themselves, were overrepresented. Children in families with more children, having a migration background, living in urbanised neighborhoods or with a low socioeconomic status (SES) are at increased risk for severe burn injury. Most incidents happened in their own home with the parents in close proximity to the child. CONCLUSION: Outcomes of this prospective cohort study provide up-to-date and extensive knowledge on the aetiology of severe burn incidents in children under 5 years of age in the Netherlands, and provide directions for prevention policy and campaigns.

Patient-reported scar quality of donor-sites following split-skin grafting in burn patients: Long-term results of a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Skin grafting is the current gold standard for treatment of deeper burns. How patients appraise the donor-site scar is poorly investigated. The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term patient-reported quality of donor-site scars after split skin grafting and identify possible predictors. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted. Patients were included in a Dutch burn centre during one year. Patient-reported quality of donor-site scars and their worst burn scar was assessed at 12 months using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Mixed model analyses were used to identify predictors of scar quality. RESULTS: This study included 115 donor-site scars of 72 patients with a mean TBSA burned of 11.2%. The vast majority of the donor-site scars (84.4%) were rated as having at least minor differences with normal skin (POSAS item score ≥2) on one or more scar characteristics and the overall opinion on 80.9% of the donor-site scars was that they deviated from normal skin 12 months after surgery. The overall opinion on the donor-site scar was 3.2 ± 2.1 vs. 5.1 ± 2.4 on the burn scar. A younger age, female gender, a darker skin type, and location on the lower leg were predictors of reduced donor-site scar quality. In addition, time to re-epithelization was associated with scar quality. CONCLUSION: This study provided new insights in long-term scar quality of donor-sites. Donor-site scars differed from normal skin in a large part of the population 12 months after surgery. Results of this study can be used to inform patients on the long-term outcomes of their scars and to tailor preventive or therapeutic treatment options.

Course of scar quality of donor sites following split skin graft harvesting: Comparison between patients and observers.

There exists little to no data on the development of donor-site scars that remain after split skin graft harvesting. The objectives of this study were to (a) examine changes in characteristics of donor-site scar quality over time and (b) assess the agreement between patient-reported and observer-reported donor-site scar quality in a burn population. A prospective cohort study was conducted including patients who underwent split skin grafting for their burn injury. Patients and observers completed the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) for the first harvested donor site at 3 and 12 months post-surgery. This study included 80 patients with a median age of 34 years. At 3 months post-surgery, the patients scored the POSAS items itch and color as most deviant from normal skin, both improved between 3 and 12 months (3.1 vs 1.5 and 5.0 vs 3.5, respectively [P < .001]). Other scar characteristics did not show significant change over time. The patients' overall opinion score improved from 3.9 to 3.2 (P < .001). Observers rated the items vascularization and pigmentation most severe, only vascularization improved significantly between both time points. Their overall opinion score decreased from 2.7 to 2.3 (P < .001). The inter-observer agreement between patients and observers was considered poor (ICC < 0.4) at both time points. Results of current study indicate that observers underestimate the impact of donor-site scars. This has to be kept in mind while guiding therapy and expectations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, prospective cohort study.