Comparison between breast volume measurement using 3D surface imaging and classical techniques

Kovâcs, László; Eder, Maximilian; Hollweck, Regina; Zimmermann, Alexander; Settles, Markus; Schneider, Armin; Endlich, Matthias; Müeller, Andreas; Schwenzer-Zimmerer, K.; Papadopulos, Nikolaos Α.; Biemer, E.

doi:10.1016/j.breast.2006.08.001

Cited by 227 publications

(196 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

173

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The ideal scanner should feature both: high accuracy and precision. Studies evaluating scanners in medicine have mostly investigated one special anatomical area with a particular scanner and found accuracy and precision of the 3-D devices reasonable enough to recommend them for clinical application without investigating if the specific scanning systems or maybe a different device is best suited for the anatomical region of interest [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. Our study, testing various scanners based on different technologies on three different kinds of complex surfaces for the first time, is able to corroborate these findings.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

“…With human subjects, reliable measurements exploring limitations in accuracy and precision of the systems would have hardly been possible, given a substantial amount of variables that cannot be standardized, such as skin translucency, reflectivity, colour or artifacts caused by movement [13][14][15][16][17][18]. So far, a number of publications used single scanners for anthropometric measurements or clinical studies of individual body regions [21][22][23][24][25][26]. When comparing scanner results with an established reference method (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By applying a standardized 3-D scanning protocol, the influence of human artefacts can be compensated and reduced [13][14][15][23][24][25][26]. 3-D imaging of the breast region for example can be obtained in a standing position on predefined markers on the ground, patients back-supported by a wall, patients holding their breath during acquisition and arms down the side crossed behind at the height of the pelvis [3,15,23,25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of Precision and Accuracy Assessment of Different 3-D Surface Imaging Systems for Biomedical Purposes

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three-dimensional (3-D) surface imaging has gained clinical acceptance, especially in the field of craniomaxillo-facial and plastic, reconstructive, and aesthetic surgery. Six scanners based on different scanning principles (Minolta Vivid 910®, Polhemus FastSCAN™, GFM PRIMOS®, GFM TopoCAM®, Steinbichler Comet® Vario Zoom 250, 3dMD DSP 400®) were used to measure five sheep skulls of different sizes. In three areas with varying anatomical complexity (areas, 10high; 20moderate; 30 low), 56 distances between 20 landmarks are defined on each skull. Manual measurement (MM), coordinate machine measurements (CMM) and computer tomography (CT) measurements were used to define a reference method for further precision and accuracy evaluation of different 3-D scanning systems. MM showed high correlation to CMM and CT measurements (both r00.987; p<0.001) and served as the reference method. TopoCAM®, Comet® and Vivid 910® showed highest measurement precision over all areas of complexity; Vivid 910®, the Comet® and the DSP 400® demonstrated highest accuracy over all areas with Vivid 910® being most accurate in areas 1 and 3, and the DSP 400® most accurate in area 2. In accordance to the measured distance length, most 3-D devices present higher measurement precision and accuracy for large distances and lower degrees of precision and accuracy for short distances. In general, higher degrees of complexity are associated with lower 3-D assessment accuracy, suggesting that for optimal results, different types of scanners should be applied to specific clinical applications and medical problems according to their special construction designs and characteristics.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of Precision and Accuracy Assessment of Different 3-D Surface Imaging Systems for Biomedical Purposes

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reports underline the importance of breast volume measurement both in determin-ing the best ORBS technique and obtaining more objective assessments of post-surgery cosmetic outcomes (22). Mammographic methods, while expensive, are highly popular due to their accuracy and repeatability (23).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Approach of General Surgeons to Oncoplastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery in Turkey: A Survey of Practice Patterns

Emiroğlu¹,

Sert

Inal

et al. 2015

Balkan Med J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the wide acceptance of Fisher's theory that breast cancer is a systemic disease from the start and in the light of improvements in adjuvant treatment, the role of surgery in the treatment of cancer was expected to gradually decrease (1). However today's surgical treatment of breast cancer has developed into oncoplastic and reconstructive surgery (Oncoplastic Breast Surgery (OBS) + Reconstructive Breast Surgery (RBS) = ORBS). Besides establishing ideal regional oncological control, surgeons are often faced with the difficulties of conserving breast aesthetics or achieving optimal results. In a meta-analysis, Losken et al. reported that the rate of surgical margin involvement was 12.3% and 20.6% for patients who underwent OBS and Breast Conserving Surgery (BCS), respectively. In addition, they reported local recurrence rates of 3.6-4.7% and 7% for OBS and BCS, respectively (2). In another study comparing oncological outcomes for BCS and OBS, they reported tumour sizes of 17 mm and 24 mm, surgical margins of 6 mm and 14 mm, and rates of re-excision of 29% and 5.4%, respectively. They suggested that OBS has a positive effect on oncological perspective in breast cancer surgery (3).The Turkish Federation of Breast Disease Societies (TFBDS) made recommendations regarding ORBS at their first Breast Cancer Consensus Meeting in 2006 (4). In TurBackground: Oncoplastic Breast Surgery (OBS), which is a combination of oncological procedures and plastic surgery techniques, has recently gained widespread use. Aims: To assess the experiences, practice patterns and preferred approaches to Oncoplastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery (ORBS) undertaken by general surgeons specializing in breast surgery in Turkey. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Between December 2013 and February 2014, an elevenquestion survey was distributed among 208 general surgeons specializing in breast surgery. The questions focused on the attitudes of general surgeons toward performing oncoplastic breast surgery (OBS), the role of the general surgeon in OBS and their training for it as well as their approaches to evaluating cosmetic outcomes in Breast Conserving Surgery (BCS) and informing patients about ORBS preoperatively. Results:Responses from all 208 surgeons indicated that 79.8% evaluated the cosmetic outcomes of BCS, while 94.2% informed their patients preoperatively about ORBS. 52.5% performed BCS (31.3% themselves, 21.1% together with a plastic surgeon). 53.8% emphasized that general surgeons should carry out OBS themselves. 36.1% of respondents suggested that OBS training should be included within mainstream surgical training, whereas 27.4% believed this training should be conducted by specialised centres. Conclusion: Although OBS procedure rates are low in Turkey, it is encouraging to see general surgeons practicing ORBS themselves. The survey demonstrates that our general surgeons aspire to learn and utilize OBS techniques.

show abstract

“…Three-dimensional body surface imaging by a 3D laser scanner is a new but expensive alternative to the classical methods of breast volume calculation such as anthropomorphic measurements, water displacement, thermoplastic castings, and nuclear magnetic resonance imaging [2][3][4][5][6]. Many studies continue to focus on volume assessment, but this is a poor method for implant selection now that anatomical expandable and silicone implants are available [7,8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

Comparison between breast volume measurement using 3D surface imaging and classical techniques

Cited by 227 publications

References 32 publications

Evaluation of Precision and Accuracy Assessment of Different 3-D Surface Imaging Systems for Biomedical Purposes

Evaluation of Precision and Accuracy Assessment of Different 3-D Surface Imaging Systems for Biomedical Purposes

The Approach of General Surgeons to Oncoplastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery in Turkey: A Survey of Practice Patterns

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About