Simulated Wound Assessment Using Digital Planimetry versus Three-Dimensional Cameras: Implications for Clinical Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Clinical management of wounds can benefit from objective measures of response to treatment. Wound surface area and volume are objective measures of wound healing. Using a synthetic wound model, we compare the accuracy and reproducibility of 2 commercially available 3-dimensional (3D) cameras against planimetry and water displacement. METHODS: Twelve ulcers of various sizes and colors were reproduced in modeling clay and cured. Five naive observers used digital planimetry, water displacement, Eykona camera (Fuel 3D, UK), and Silhouette camera (ARANZ, New Zealand) to measure the wounds. RESULTS: When compared with traditional planimetry, wound surface area measurement with Eykona and Silhouette tended to underestimate wounds by 1.7% and 3.7%, respectively. Spearman correlation coefficients were 0.94 (Eykona) and 0.92 (Silhouette). Intraclass correlations for planimetry and the 2 cameras were all 1. Eykona and Silhouette tended to underestimate wound volumes when compared with water displacement by 58% and 23%, respectively. Spearman correlation coefficients were 0.92 (Eykona) and 0.72 (Silhouette). Intraclass correlations for water displacement and the two cameras were all 1. DISCUSSION: Serial accurate objective area measurements are feasible as part of ongoing clinical assessment of wounds. 3D cameras are reliable but have not shown superior accuracy to manual planimetry, and financial concerns and IT integration may limit general clinical usage. Volume measurements of wounds are practicable as part of clinical care.

The role of cost-effectiveness for vascular surgery service provision in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: The cost of health care is increasingly becoming an international issue, with many health care systems requiring evaluation of cost when agreeing to fund health care. In the United Kingdom (UK), for example, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence highlights the importance of using cost-effectiveness analyses to facilitate the effective use of resources. This study evaluates the use of cost-effectiveness analyses and the provision of vascular surgery. METHODS: A systematic review of published literature was performed. UK-based studies assessing cost-effectiveness or cost-utility of superficial venous interventions, abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) were included. All included studies were quality assessed to determine the overall strength of UK economic evidence for each intervention. RESULTS: Four superficial venous, six AAA, and two CEA studies met the inclusion criteria. After quality assessment, the UK evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of superficial venous intervention was graded strong. The economic evidence for asymptomatic and symptomatic CEA was graded limited and insufficient, respectively, owing to a paucity of UK literature in this field. There was strong UK economic evidence affirming that endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is unlikely to be a cost-effective alternative to open repair. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong economic evidence for symptomatic superficial venous intervention. However, funding for varicose vein treatments remains controversial. Future economic analyses are required for symptomatic and asymptomatic CEA to better advise national policy. Despite strong economic evidence, current UK guidance is for EVAR over open repair in the elective setting, with the majority of elective AAA repairs being EVAR.