Acta Mechanica Slovaca 2025, 29(4):44-49 | DOI: 10.21496/ams.2025.031

Inter-device Consistency in 3D Burn Surface Estimation

Katarína Dudová1, *, Bibiána Ondrejová1, Branko Štefanovič1, Lucia Bednarčíková1, Jozef Živčák1
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Biomedical Engineering and Measurement, Technical University of Košice, Letná 1/9, 04200, Košice, Slovakia

The objective of this study was to estimate whether the Revopoint Miraco portable 3D scanner provides sufficient accuracy in comparison to the Artec Eva for measuring burn wound surfaces. A total of 26 anatomical regions were scanned in 11 patients. The results demonstrated good agreement between the two devices, with a mean relative difference of 4.1%. Additionally, the study assessed the advantages and limitations of each scanner in terms of operational workflow, user-friendliness, and portability.

Keywords: 3D scanning, burn wounds, surface measurement, Artec Eva, Revopoint Miraco

Received: October 3, 2025; Revised: November 24, 2025; Accepted: November 26, 2025; Published: December 15, 2025  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Dudová, K., Ondrejová, B., Štefanovič, B., Bednarčíková, L., & Živčák, J. (2025). Inter-device Consistency in 3D Burn Surface Estimation. Acta Mechanica Slovaca, 29(4), 44-49. doi: 10.21496/ams.2025.031
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Taylor, N., et al. (1943). The use of the Lund and Browder chart in the assessment of burn injuries. Journal of Burn Care Research, 4(2), 115-120.
    2. Harish, V., et al. (2015). Accuracy of burn size estimation and its implications. Burns, 41(5), 1055-1060.
    3. Sánchez-Jiménez, D., et al. (2022). SfM-3DULC: Reliability of a new 3D wound measurement procedure and its accuracy in projected area. International Wound Journal, 19(1), 44-51. Go to original source...
    4. Kang, M. J., et al. (2021). Advances in 3D imaging technology for wound assessment. Wound Repair and Regeneration, 29(3), 456-462.
    5. Artec 3D. Artec Eva 3D Scanner [Internet]. Available from: https://www.artec3d.com/portable-3d-scanners/artec-eva [Accessed 2025 Apr 30].
    6. Revopoint. Revopoint MIRACO 3D Scanner [Internet]. Available from: https://www.revopoint3d.com/product/miraco/ [Accessed 2025 Apr 30].
    7. Davis, J. S., et al. (2018). Validation of a smartphone-based 3D application for burn size estimation. Burns and Trauma, 6(1), 1-8.
    8. Goto, T., et al. (2020). Evaluation of burn wound area using a three-dimensional wound measurement system. Burns, 46(1), 234-242.
    9. Kay, A. R., et al. (2021). Clinical applications of handheld 3D scanners in telemedicine. Telemedicine and e-Health, 27(10), 1025-1032.
    10. Chae, M. P., et al. (2022). Smart 3D imaging technologies for wound diagnosis. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open, 10(6), e4433.
    11. Nguyen, J. T., et al. (2021). High-resolution 3D scanning in surgical planning: A systematic review. Journal of Digital Imaging, 34(5), 1212-1221.
    12. Kim, H. S., et al. (2023). Evaluation of portable 3D scanners in clinical dermatology. Skin Research and Technology, 29(1), e13315.
    13. Palmer, C. S., et al. (2024). Accuracy of burn size estimation and impact on fluid resuscitation: A review of referring and receiving hospitals. Burns, 50(2), 321-328.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content