Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2013
Direct comparison of laser Doppler flowmetry and laser Doppler imaging for assessment of experimentally-induced inflammation in human skin.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Petersen Lars J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN: Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) and laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF) can measure localized skin perfusion. The purpose of the study was to directly compare LDF with LDI as a tool for measuring skin blood changes in an experimental model of chemically-induced skin inflammation.
METHODS: Regions of interest 1.8 cm² in area on the forearm skin of eight healthy volunteers were randomized and exposed to 0.25, 0.5, 1, or 2 % topical sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) or vehicle for 24 h. Mean blood flow was measured by LDI and LDF at 24, 48, and 72 h. Inflammation was clinically graded using a standardized, clinical score.
RESULTS: Sodium lauryl sulfate induced significant, dose-dependent local inflammation. Both Doppler methods were significantly correlated with the clinical grading (LDF, r = 0.755; LDI, r = 0.836). LDF and LDI showed similar significance differences with regard to dose- and time-response patterns compared to the vehicle. The absolute and relative LDF and LDI values were significantly correlated.
CONCLUSIONS: Laser Doppler flowmetry and LDI showed similar dose- and time-response relations in irritant-induced inflammatory skin reactions. For the assessment of localized skin reactions, LDI possesses no apparent advantages over the less expensive LDF method for grading dermal inflammatory reactions.
METHODS: Regions of interest 1.8 cm² in area on the forearm skin of eight healthy volunteers were randomized and exposed to 0.25, 0.5, 1, or 2 % topical sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) or vehicle for 24 h. Mean blood flow was measured by LDI and LDF at 24, 48, and 72 h. Inflammation was clinically graded using a standardized, clinical score.
RESULTS: Sodium lauryl sulfate induced significant, dose-dependent local inflammation. Both Doppler methods were significantly correlated with the clinical grading (LDF, r = 0.755; LDI, r = 0.836). LDF and LDI showed similar significance differences with regard to dose- and time-response patterns compared to the vehicle. The absolute and relative LDF and LDI values were significantly correlated.
CONCLUSIONS: Laser Doppler flowmetry and LDI showed similar dose- and time-response relations in irritant-induced inflammatory skin reactions. For the assessment of localized skin reactions, LDI possesses no apparent advantages over the less expensive LDF method for grading dermal inflammatory reactions.