Estimating Implant Volume and Mastectomy-Specimen Volume by Measuring Breast Volume With a 3-Dimensional Scanner

Utsunomiya, Hidetsuna; Kusano, Taro; Sato, Nobuhiro; Yoshimoto, Shinya

doi:10.1097/sap.0000000000001057

Cited by 11 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Good to strong correlations were presented. 20,27,28,35 In view of this, a Pearson correlation coefficient was also performed for this study, which demonstrated a good positive correlation between measured and AVs in both positions (r = .770, P < .001 and r = .846, P < .001 for 90 and 30°, respectively). This demonstrates how a statistically significant discrepancy in the measurements of 2 methods can still report a good correlation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…The majority of volumetric studies of the breast in the literature have measured absolute breast volume using a single-captured surface, which can be used in clinical applications such as preoperative measurements to guide implant sizing or to assess asymmetry. 8 Validation studies have compared measured volumes to the weight or volume of breast tissue removed at mastectomy (mastectomy specimen volume) as their gold standard, 9,20,[26][27][28] and this study design has been seldom disputed. However, as Losken et al 9 pointed out, the different methods of volume assessment measure different areas of the breast, with MRI volumetry corresponding most closely with mastectomy specimen volume by using anatomical breast boundaries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring Differential Volume Using the Subtraction Tool for Three-Dimensional Breast Volumetry: A Proof of Concept Study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Three-dimensional (3D) photography provides a promising means of breast volumetry. Sources of error using a single-captured surface to calculate breast volume include inaccurate designation of breast boundaries and prediction of the invisible chest wall generated by computer software. An alternative approach is to measure differential volume using subtraction of 2 captured surfaces. Objectives. To explore 3D breast volumetry using the subtraction of superimposed images to calculate differential volume. To assess optimal patient positioning for accurate volumetric assessment. Methods. Known volumes of breast enhancers simulated volumetric changes to the breast (n = 12). 3D photographs were taken (3dMDtorso) with the subject positioned upright at 90° and posteriorly inclined at 30°. Patient position, breathing, distance and camera calibration were standardised. Volumetric analysis was performed using 3dMDvultus software. Results. A statistically significant difference was found between actual volume and measured volumes with subjects positioned at 90° ( P < .05). No statistical difference was found at 30° ( P = .078), but subsequent Bland–Altman analysis showed evidence of proportional bias ( P < .05). There was good correlation between measured and actual volumes in both positions (r = .77 and r = .85, respectively). Univariate analyses showed breast enhancer volumes of 195 mL and 295 mL to incur bias. The coefficient of variation was 5.76% for single observer analysis. Conclusion. Positioning the subject at a 30° posterior incline provides more accurate results from better exposure of the inferior breast. The subtraction tool is a novel method of measuring differential volume. Future studies should explore methodology for application into the clinical setting.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Differential Volume Using the Subtraction Tool for Three-Dimensional Breast Volumetry: A Proof of Concept Study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Publications in scientific literature describe different methods to achieve direct assessment of the breast volume and many studies tried to provide a more evidence-based approach in order to help selecting the prosthetic implant and to use this information to better plan the preoperative phase of the reconstruction [7][8][9][10][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Prospective Investigation of Predictive Parameters for Preoperative Volume Assessment in Breast Reconstruction

Zingaretti

Miotti

Maronese

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Preoperative breast volume estimation is very important for the success of the breast surgery. In this study four different breast volume determination methods were compared. The end-point of this prospective study was to evaluate the concordance between different modalities of breast volume assessment (MRI, BREAST-V, mastectomy specimen weight, conversion from weight to volume of mastectomy specimen) and the breast prosthetic volume implanted. The study enrolled 64 patients between 2017 and 2019, who had all been treated by the same surgeons for monolateral nipple–areola complex-sparing mastectomy and implant breast reconstruction. Only patients who had a breast reconstruction classified as “excellent” from an objective (BCCT.core software) and subjective (questionnaire) point of view at the 6-month interval after the operation were included in the study. Data analysis highlighted a strong correlation between the volumes of the chosen prostheses and the weights of mastectomy converted into volume, especially for patients with grades B and C parenchymal density. The values of the agreement between the volumes of the chosen prostheses and the assessments from MRI and BREAST -V proved to be lower than expected from the literature. None of the four studied methods presented any strong correlation with the initial breast width. Our results suggest that conversion from weight to volume of mastectomy specimen should be used to assist in determining the volume of the breast implant to be implanted. This method would help the reconstructive surgeon guide the choice of the most appropriate implant preoperatively.

show abstract

“…in 2017 was performed in a Japanese population undergoing two-stage breast reconstruction. 10 Breast volumes were measured using the Microsoft Kinect 3D scanning technology and found that pre-operative breast volumes were very similar to mastectomy and implant volumes. Clinically, this finding diverges from our daily observations, whereby mastectomy weights (and thus, implant sizes) are larger than pre-operative breast size assessments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictive value of 3D imaging to guide implant selection in immediate breast reconstruction

Mahoney

Soon

et al. 2022

JPRAS Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Background Pre-operative estimation of breast mound volume for immediate breast reconstruction is necessary for operative planning, especially in direct-to-implant reconstruction. Our purpose was to investigate the relationship between pre-operative predictions of breast mound weight from 3D imaging and actual mastectomy weight and implant size. Methods A retrospective chart review of all patients who had previously undergone nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) by a single surgeon was performed. Pre-operative 3D images were reviewed and calculations of breast mound weight were performed by three independent reviewers. Intra-operative mastectomy weight and final implant weight were collected from patient charts. A regression analysis between calculated and actual values was performed. Results There were 59 reconstructed breasts included. Pre-operative 3D imaging-guided breast weight calculations were similar across reviewers (R=0.96). Pre-operative calculations of breast weight were 49.4g (SD=134.0) smaller than actual mastectomy specimens. Mastectomy specimens were 41.0g (SD=130.2) smaller than final implant sizes. Thereby, the relationship was as follows: Pre-operative calculated breast weight < actual Mastectomy weight < implant weight. Mastectomy weight and final implant size had linear relationships with pre-operative calculations of breast weight. Formulas for predicting mastectomy weight [mastectomy weight = 63.2 + 0.95 (pre-operative calculated weight)] and implant size [Implant weight = 209.7+ 0.56 (pre-operative calculated weight)] from pre-operative calculations of breast weight were generated. Conclusions Three-dimensional scanning technologies may be a useful tool to predict implant sizes for direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Final implant size was heavier than intra-operative mastectomy weight and pre-operative calculated breast mound weight.

show abstract

Estimating Implant Volume and Mastectomy-Specimen Volume by Measuring Breast Volume With a 3-Dimensional Scanner

Cited by 11 publications

References 9 publications

Measuring Differential Volume Using the Subtraction Tool for Three-Dimensional Breast Volumetry: A Proof of Concept Study

Measuring Differential Volume Using the Subtraction Tool for Three-Dimensional Breast Volumetry: A Proof of Concept Study

A Prospective Investigation of Predictive Parameters for Preoperative Volume Assessment in Breast Reconstruction

Predictive value of 3D imaging to guide implant selection in immediate breast reconstruction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About