Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital

High-end versus Low-end Thermal Imaging for Detection of Arterial Perforators

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. New Validated Method for Measuring Fat Graft Retention in the Breast with MRI

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Lipovol: A Free and Validated Software for Measuring Fat Graft Volume Retention in the Breast With Magnetic Resonance Imaging

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftKonferenceabstrakt i tidsskriftForskning

  3. A Novel Porcine Model for Future Studies of Cell-enriched Fat Grafting

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Botulinum Toxin A as an Adjunct to Abdominal Wall Reconstruction for Incisional Hernia

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

Background: Thermal imaging was first reported as a method for detection of arterial perforators in 1968 and has since been shown to be an extremely accurate way to assess perforators with an audible Doppler signal, using high-end professional thermal cameras. This technology has recently become easily accessible with the advent of smartphone-compatible, low-end thermal cameras. Several groups have reported on the use of these devices in the pre-, intra-, and postoperative phase, yet there have been few attempts to validate them against existing methods or compare them with high-end thermal cameras.

Methods: The aim of this study was to compare a low-end smartphone-compatible thermal camera, the FLIR ONE Pro (ONEPro), priced US $400, with a high-end thermal camera the FLIR A35sc (A35sc), priced US $5000, for the detection of arterial perforators on the anterolateral thigh, using a handheld Doppler and Color Doppler Ultrasound to verify the results.

Results: We examined 23 thighs in 13 healthy volunteers and identified a total of 779 hotspots using both cameras. The A35sc identified on average 33.5 hotspots per thigh. The ONEPro identified on average 31.5 hotspots per thigh. Using a handheld Doppler, we confirmed 95.9% of hotspots identified with the ONEPro and 95.8% of hotspots identified with the A35sc. Using Color Doppler Ultrasound, we confirmed 95% of hotspots identified using the ONEPro and 94.9% of hotspots identified with the A35sc.

Conclusion: While the high-end camera identified slightly more hotspots, verification data were very similar for the 2 cameras, and for clinical purposes these differences are negligible.

TidsskriftPlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open
Udgave nummer10
Sider (fra-til)e3175
StatusUdgivet - okt. 2020

Bibliografisk note

Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons.

ID: 61928993