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].