Literature DB >> 15838205

Validating three-dimensional imaging of the breast.

Albert Losken1, Hisham Seify, Donald D Denson, Alfredo A Paredes, Grant W Carlson.   

Abstract

The potential to extrapolate accurate data from 3-dimensional (3D) images of the breast is enormous and will greatly improve our ability to qualitatively determine differences in shape, size, and contour. The validity of these calculated measurements is important and needs to be determined before any meaningful data can be evaluated. PART I: Premastectomy 3D images (3dMD patient) were obtained on 19 breasts (14 patients). The volume of the mastectomy specimen was determined intraoperatively using water displacement. Two independent raters then calculated breast volumes using the 3D images and software, and these were compared with the intraoperative volume. Inter- and intrarater reliability was determined. Part II: Surface measurements (nipple to notch) were then evaluated on 20 breasts (10 patients) by comparing the 3D image determined distance to the known measurements. PART I: The average breast volume was 500 mL, compared with 489 mL for rater 1 and 490 mL for rater 2. The relative difference between the measured volume and the calculated volume for rater 1 and rater 2 was about -2%, with a standard deviation of +/- 13% to 16%. The coefficient of reproducibility for each reader was excellent, at 0.80 for rater 1 and 0.92 for rater 2. The level of agreement between the readers was also high at 0.975. Part II: The average nipple to notch measurement for each patient was 27.1 cm, compared the calculated average of 25.1 cm for rater 1 and 26.1 cm for rater 2. The mean relative difference between the measured and calculated distances for raters 1 and 2 was about -6%, with a standard deviation of +/- 6% to 7%. The level of agreement between readers was high, at 0.975. The ability to objectively determine breast volume and surface measurements using 3D imaging technology is now available with consistent and reproducible accuracy. Measurements are typically underestimated, with more variability when calculating volumes. Although inherent subjectivity will always exist when evaluating breast measurements, 3D technology provides invaluable information, particularly in the longitudinal evaluation of results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15838205     DOI: 10.1097/01.sap.0000155278.87790.a1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Plast Surg        ISSN: 0148-7043            Impact factor:   1.539


  35 in total

1.  A pilot study on using eye tracking to understand assessment of surgical outcomes from clinical photography.

Authors:  Min Soon Kim; Angela Burgess; Andrew J Waters; Gregory P Reece; Elisabeth K Beahm; Melissa A Crosby; Karen M Basen-Engquist; Mia K Markey
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Three-dimensional prediction of free-flap volume in autologous breast reconstruction by CT angiography imaging.

Authors:  Maximilian Eder; Stefan Raith; Jalil Jalali; Daniel Müller; Yves Harder; Martin Dobritz; Nikolaos A Papadopulos; Hans-Günther Machens; Laszlo Kovacs
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2013-10-05       Impact factor: 2.924

3.  Contribution of breast density to the volume of the augmented breast: A preliminary study.

Authors:  Sean M Hill; Franziska Huettner; John Murray; Eric Elwood; Rebecca Barrick; Glyn Jones
Journal:  Can J Plast Surg       Date:  2011

Review 4.  Breast volumetric analysis for aesthetic planning in breast reconstruction: a literature review of techniques.

Authors:  Michael P Chae; Warren Matthew Rozen; Robert T Spychal; David J Hunter-Smith
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2016-04

5.  A prospective analysis of dynamic loss of breast projection in tissue expander-implant reconstruction.

Authors:  Lauren M Mioton; Sumanas W Jordan; John Ys Kim
Journal:  Arch Plast Surg       Date:  2015-05-14

6.  Reliability, validity, and precision of an active stereophotogrammetry system for three-dimensional evaluation of the human torso.

Authors:  Scott M Paul; Andrew P Chamberlin; Charles Hatt; Amritha V Nayak; Jerome V Danoff
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2009-10-12       Impact factor: 2.242

7.  Predicting breast reduction weight using the mass of breast ptosis.

Authors:  John D Murray; Eric T Elwood; Rebecca Barrick; Jack Feng
Journal:  Can J Plast Surg       Date:  2008

8.  Enhancing breast projection in autologous reconstruction using the St Andrew's coning technique and 3D volumetric analysis.

Authors:  Michael P Chae; Warren Matthew Rozen; Nakul Gamanlal Patel; David J Hunter-Smith; Venkat Ramakrishnan
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2017-12

Review 9.  The current progress and critical analysis of three-dimensional scanning and three-dimensional printing applications in breast surgery.

Authors:  S A Alshehri; S K Singh; A Mosahebi; D M Kalaskar
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2021-05-07

Review 10.  Volume Retention After Facial Fat Grafting and Relevant Factors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Qianwen Lv; Xin Li; Yue Qi; Yunpeng Gu; Zhenjun Liu; Gui-E Ma
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2020-01-15       Impact factor: 2.326

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.