Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparison of 3D measurement devices in terms of parameter measured, reliability, correlation with clinical score and cost

From: A systematic review of objective burn scar measurements

Device Company Parameter Intra-rater Reliability Inter-rater reliability Correlation with clinical score Cost Portability References
Eykona 3D camera Fuel 3D Surface area and volume Intra-operator variability: area: 0.9 %; volume: 4.0 % Intra-operator variability: area: 1.7 %; volume: 4.0 % No data <£5000 for the camera unit. Yes Paterson et al. (Eykona Medical Imaging FAQ) [86].
~£3 for each disposable target but device can now be configured to use reusable targets.
Lifeviz I, II, Micro Quantificare Surface area and volume No data Surface area: ICC = 0.99 (Coefficient of variation 5.9–6.8 %) Surface area: Excellent level of agreement with Visitrak (ICC 0.96, 95 % CI 0.93, 0.97); however greater level of variability in larger wounds especially circumferential wounds. Volume: r 2 = 0.9678 when correlated with actual volumes of model scars £10,000–£15,000 Yes Lumenta et al. 2011 [76], Stekelenburg et al. 2013 [75].
Volume: no data
Vectra H1 Canfield Imaging Systems Inc. Surface area and volume No data No data No data £10,000–£15,000 Yes Tzou et al. 2014 [256], Urbanova et al. 2015 [80].
Artec Eva Artec Surface area and volume No data No data No data <£10,000 (depends on package) Yes N/a
Minolta Vivid 910 3D linear laser scanner Konica-Minolta Surface area and volume No data No data No data >£15,000 Yes Taylor et al. 2007 [93].
Moulding (positive–negative moulage) N/a Volume ICC = 0.921–0.995 ICC = 0.759–0.977 No data Dependent on moulding material and measurement techniques used Yes Berman et al. 2015 [72].