Inflammation Research

, Volume 62, Issue 12, pp 1073–1078 | Cite as

Direct comparison of laser Doppler flowmetry and laser Doppler imaging for assessment of experimentally-induced inflammation in human skin

  • Lars J. Petersen
Original Research Paper


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.


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.


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.


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.


Comparative study Dose-response relation Human Inflammation Laser Doppler flowmetry Laser Doppler imaging Reproducibility Skin irritants Sodium lauryl sulfate 



The study was supported by a research grant from the Rosa and Asta Jensen Foundation.


  1. 1.
    Engelhart M, Petersen LJ, Kristensen JK. The local regulation of blood flow evaluated simultaneously by 133-xenon washout and laser Doppler flowmetry. J Invest Dermatol. 1988;91:451–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cracowski JL, Minson CT, Salvat-Melis M, Halliwill JR. Methodological issues in the assessment of skin microvascular endothelial function in humans. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2006;27:503–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roustit M, Blaise S, Millet C, Cracowski JL. Reproducibility and methodological issues of skin post-occlusive and thermal hyperemia assessed by single-point laser Doppler flowmetry. Microvasc Res. 2010;79:102–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tew GA, Klonizakis M, Crank H, Briers JD, Hodges GJ. Comparison of laser speckle contrast imaging with laser Doppler for assessing microvascular function. Microvasc Res. 2011;82:326–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clough GF, Bennett AR, Church MK. Effects of H1 antagonists on the cutaneous vascular response to histamine and bradykinin: a study using scanning laser Doppler imaging. Br J Dermatol. 1998;138:806–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bray R, Forrester K, Leonard C, McArthur R, Tulip J, Lindsay R. Laser Doppler imaging of burn scars: a comparison of wavelength and scanning methods. Burns. 2003;29:199–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Opazo Saez AM, Mosel F, Nurnberger J, Rushentsova U, Gossl M, Mitchell A, Schafers RF, Philipp T, Wenzel RR. Laser Doppler imager (LDI) scanner and intradermal injection for in vivo pharmacology in human skin microcirculation: responses to acetylcholine, endothelin-1 and their repeatability. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2005;59:511–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fluhr JW, Kuss O, Diepgen T, Lazzerini S, Pelosi A, Gloor M, Berardesca E. Testing for irritation with a multifactorial approach: comparison of eight non-invasive measuring techniques on five different irritation types. Br J Dermatol. 2001;145:696–703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kernick DP, Shore AC. Characteristics of laser Doppler perfusion imaging in vitro and in vivo. Physiol Meas. 2000;21:333–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klonizakis M, Manning G, Donnelly R. Assessment of lower limb microcirculation: exploring the reproducibility and clinical application of laser Doppler techniques. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2011;24:136–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roustit M, Millet C, Blaise S, Dufournet B, Cracowski JL. Excellent reproducibility of laser speckle contrast imaging to assess skin microvascular reactivity. Microvasc Res. 2010;80:505–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seifalian AM, Stansby G, Jackson A, Howell K, Hamilton G. Comparison of laser Doppler perfusion imaging, laser Doppler flowmetry, and thermographic imaging for assessment of blood flow in human skin. Eur J Vasc Surg. 1994;8:65–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Broby-Johansen U, Karlsmark T, Petersen LJ, Serup J. Ranking of the antipsoriatic effect of various topical corticosteroids applied under a hydrocolloid dressing—skin-thickness, blood-flow and colour measurements compared to clinical assessments. Clin Exp Dermatol. 1990;15:343–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Henricson J, Tesselaar E, Persson K, Nilsson G, Sjoberg F. Assessment of microvascular function by study of the dose-response effects of iontophoretically applied drugs (acetylcholine and sodium nitroprusside)—methods and comparison with in vitro studies. Microvasc Res. 2007;73:143–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leahy MJ, Enfield JG, Clancy NT, O’Doherty J, McNamara P, Nilsson GE. Biophotonic methods in microcirculation imaging. Med Laser Appl. 2007;22:105–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tupker RA, Willis C, Berardesca E, Lee CH, Fartasch M, Agner T, Serup J. Guidelines on sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) exposure tests: a report from the Standardization Group of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis. Contact Dermat. 1997;37:53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Petersen LJ, Lyngholm AM, Arendt-Nielsen L. A novel model of inflammatory pain in human skin involving topical application of sodium lauryl sulfate. Inflamm Res. 2010;59:775–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fullerton A, Stucker M, Wilhelm KP, Wardell K, Anderson C, Fischer T, Nilsson GE, Serup J. Guidelines for visualization of cutaneous blood flow by laser Doppler perfusion imaging: a report from the Standardization Group of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis based upon the HIRELADO European community project. Contact Dermat. 2002;46:129–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Petersen LJ, Church MK, Skov PS. Histamine is released in the wheal but not the flare following challenge of human skin in vivo: a microdialysis study. Clin Exp Allergy. 1997;27:284–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Petersen LJ, Zacho HD, Lyngholm AM, Arendt-Nielsen L. Tissue viability imaging for assessment of pharmacologically induced vasodilation and vasoconstriction in human skin. Microvasc Res. 2010;80:499–504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    O’Doherty J, McNamara P, Clancy NT, Enfield JG, Leahy MJ. Comparison of instruments for investigation of microcirculatory blood flow and red blood cell concentration. J Biomed Opt. 2009;14:034025.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Staberg B, Serup J. Allergic and irritant skin reactions evaluated by laser Doppler flowmetry. Contact Dermat. 1988;18:40–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goon AT, Leow YH, Chan YH, Goh CL. Correlation between laser Doppler perfusion imaging and visual scoring of patch test sites in subjects with experimentally induced allergic and irritant contact reactions. Skin Res Technol. 2004;10:64–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fullerton A, Rode B, Serup J. Skin irritation typing and grading based on laser Doppler perfusion imaging. Skin Res Technol. 2002;8:23–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Farnebo S, Zettersten EK, Samuelsson A, Tesselaar E, Sjoberg F. Assessment of blood flow changes in human skin by microdialysis urea clearance. Microcirculation. 2011;18:198–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Roustit M, Maggi F, Isnard S, Hellmann M, Bakken B, Cracowski JL. Reproducibility of a local cooling test to assess microvascular function in human skin. Microvasc Res. 2010;79:34–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bircher A, de Boer EM, Agner T, Wahlberg JE, Serup J. Guidelines for measurement of cutaneous blood flow by laser Doppler flowmetry: a report from the Standardization Group of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis. Contact Dermat. 1994;30:65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:135–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med. 2000;30:1–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineAalborg University HospitalAalborgDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Clinical MedicineAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations