Alan Chuong Q Pham1, Erik La Hei1,2, John G Harvey1,2, Andrew Ja Holland1,2,3. 1. The Children's Hospital at Westmead Burns Research Institute, The Burns Unit and The NSW Severe Burns Injury Service, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, The University of SydneyWestmead, NSW 2145, Australia. 2. Department of Paediatric Surgery, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, The University of SydneyWestmead, NSW 2145, Australia. 3. Discipline of Child and Adolescent Health, The Children's Hospital at Westmead Clinical School, The University of SydneyWestmead, NSW 2145, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the potential confounding effects of four different types of ambient lighting on the results of Laser Doppler Imaging (LDI) of a standardized cutaneous injury model. METHODS: After applying a mechanical stimulus to the anterior forearm of a healthy volunteer and inducing a wheal and arteriolar flare (the Triple response), we used a Laser Doppler Line Scanner (LDLS) to image the forearm under four different types of ambient lighting: light-emitting-diode (LED), compact fluorescent lighting (CFL), halogen, daylight, and darkness as a control. A spectrometer was used to measure the intensity of light energy at 785 nm, the wavelength used by the scanner for measurement under each type of ambient lighting. RESULTS: Neither the LED nor CFL bulbs emitted detectable light energy at a wavelength of 785 nm. The color-based representation of arbitrary perfusion unit (APU) values of the Triple response measured by the scanner was similar between darkness, LED, and CFL light. Daylight emitted 2 mW at 785 nm, with a slight variation tending more towards lower APU values compared to darkness. Halogen lighting emitted 6 mW of light energy at 785 nm rendering the color-based representation impossible to interpret. CONCLUSIONS: Halogen lighting and daylight have the potential to confound results of LDI of cutaneous injuries whereas LED and CFL lighting did not. Any potential sources of daylight should be reduced and halogen lighting completely covered or turned off prior to wound imaging.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the potential confounding effects of four different types of ambient lighting on the results of Laser Doppler Imaging (LDI) of a standardized cutaneous injury model. METHODS: After applying a mechanical stimulus to the anterior forearm of a healthy volunteer and inducing a wheal and arteriolar flare (the Triple response), we used a Laser Doppler Line Scanner (LDLS) to image the forearm under four different types of ambient lighting: light-emitting-diode (LED), compact fluorescent lighting (CFL), halogen, daylight, and darkness as a control. A spectrometer was used to measure the intensity of light energy at 785 nm, the wavelength used by the scanner for measurement under each type of ambient lighting. RESULTS: Neither the LED nor CFL bulbs emitted detectable light energy at a wavelength of 785 nm. The color-based representation of arbitrary perfusion unit (APU) values of the Triple response measured by the scanner was similar between darkness, LED, and CFL light. Daylight emitted 2 mW at 785 nm, with a slight variation tending more towards lower APU values compared to darkness. Halogen lighting emitted 6 mW of light energy at 785 nm rendering the color-based representation impossible to interpret. CONCLUSIONS:Halogen lighting and daylight have the potential to confound results of LDI of cutaneous injuries whereas LED and CFL lighting did not. Any potential sources of daylight should be reduced and halogen lighting completely covered or turned off prior to wound imaging.
Authors: J C Jeng; A Bridgeman; L Shivnan; P M Thornton; H Alam; T J Clarke; K A Jablonski; M H Jordan Journal: Burns Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 2.744