Breast Volume Determination in Breast Hypertrophy: An Accurate Method Using Two Anthropomorphic Measurements

Sigurdson, Leif; Kirkland, Susan

doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000227627.75771.5c

Cited by 75 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Brown formula [27,62] Sigurdson formula [63] Breast-V formula [59] Mammography X-ray Total: 20 min [40] $60 [40] As a cone [41,65] As elliptic cylinder [40,64] CT CT Figure 3a [54]…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Objective Breast Volume, Shape and Surface Area Assessment: A Systematic Review of Breast Measurement Methods

Perdanasari

Ong

et al. 2014

Aesth Plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Brown formula [27,62] Sigurdson formula [63] Breast-V formula [59] Mammography X-ray Total: 20 min [40] $60 [40] As a cone [41,65] As elliptic cylinder [40,64] CT CT Figure 3a [54]…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Objective Breast Volume, Shape and Surface Area Assessment: A Systematic Review of Breast Measurement Methods

Perdanasari

Ong

et al. 2014

Aesth Plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These variables may be identified in the preoperative planning stage and include certain characteristics of the breast (skin envelope, scar tissue, muscle coverage, IMF position, nipple position), as well as size and ptosis of the opposite breast. Sigurdson and Kirkland used multiple linear regression analysis of anthropomorphic measurements to develop a formula to predict breast volume in case of breast hypertrophy [18]. Descamps et al used multiple regression analysis to predict resection weight for reduction mammoplasty [19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictability of anthropomorphic measurements in implant selection for breast reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Preoperative implant planning for breast reconstruction is often at risk of being changed perioperatively. This study examined which factors are associated with a change of implant selection. Methods Women who had unilateral two-stage breast reconstruction between 2002 and 2007 were studied. Inclusion criteria were photographic evidence of preoperative skin markings indicating breast dimensions and a selected implant model. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with a changed selection. Results Among the 496 women studied, 308 preoperative implant choices (62.1%) were changed during surgery. A change in plan was significantly associated with symmetrization surgery involving contralateral reduction mammaplasty (OR = 1.92; 95% CI, 1.12 to 3.29) and contralateral mastopexy (OR = 2.26; 95% CI, 1.29 to 3.96), but not with BMI. The required implant width changed more than 0.5 cm in 70 cases (14.1%) while height changed more than 0.5 cm in 215 cases (43.2%). The likelihood of a change was high for large preoperative widths (OR = 9.66 for 15.5 cm) and small preoperative heights (OR = 2.97 for 10.5 cm). At a mean follow-up of 16.6 months, patient satisfaction was good or average in 92.1% of cases and 5.9% of implants had been replaced with another model, indicating that the perioperative implant selection was usually appropriate. Conclusions This study documents the frequency with which implant choices, despite accurate preoperative planning, are changed perioperatively as a result of relatively small differences in anthropomorphic measurements. Perioperative recalculation of breast dimensions may have an advantage in terms of patient reoperation rates. Changes in width were less frequent than changes in height and projection. Contralateral surgery, large width, and small height were the most influential factors. Level of Evidence: Level IV, risk / prognostic study.

show abstract

“…Brown et al (1999) ont identifié 12 repères anatomiques clés pour des sujets en position assise. Vandeput et Nelissen (2002) en ont seulement utilisés 6 alors que Sigurdson et Kirkland (2006) ont introduit 11 mesures anthropomorphes pour déterminer le volume des seins pour des personnes en position debout. Enfin, la forme des seins peut devenir encore plus complexe quand la position (assis/debout), l'âge ou l'origine sont pris en considération (Fabié et al, 2006).…”

Section: Variation Du Bonnetunclassified

Nouvelle méthode de surveillance des travailleuses du nucléaire par anthroporadiamétrie : utilisation des calculs Monte Carlo associés aux fantômes déformables de type Mesh et NURBS

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Breast Volume Determination in Breast Hypertrophy: An Accurate Method Using Two Anthropomorphic Measurements

Abstract: Surgeons may find this formula a practical and relatively accurate method of determining breast volume.

Cited by 75 publications

References 16 publications

Objective Breast Volume, Shape and Surface Area Assessment: A Systematic Review of Breast Measurement Methods

Objective Breast Volume, Shape and Surface Area Assessment: A Systematic Review of Breast Measurement Methods

Predictability of anthropomorphic measurements in implant selection for breast reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study

Nouvelle méthode de surveillance des travailleuses du nucléaire par anthroporadiamétrie : utilisation des calculs Monte Carlo associés aux fantômes déformables de type Mesh et NURBS

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About