Literature DB >> 16411159

The cost effectiveness of three different measures of breast volume.

Mary Katherine Caruso, Thomas S Guillot, Tuong Nguyen, Frank L Greenway.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several methods including water displacement, casting, the Grossman-Roudner measuring device, photographs, mammograms, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have been proposed for the measurement of breast volume. The most cost-effective method has not been determined.
METHODS: This study compared breast volume measurements using the Grossman-Roudner measuring device (a piece of circular plastic with a cut along a radius line), plaster casting, and MRI. The Grossman-Roudner measuring device was formed into a cone around the breast, and the volume was read from a graduated scale on the overlapping edges. The volume of the cast was measured using a butter-sand mixture and water displacement. The volume from the MRI slices was calculated using the ANALYZE bioimaging software. For five women with breast sizes AA, A, B, C, and D, the three volume measures were repeated three times. For a single volume measurement, the cost of the time and materials was 1 US dollar for the Grossman-Roudner cone, 20 US dollars for the cast, and 1,400 US dollars for the MRI. Using the mean and standard deviations of the measurements, a power analysis determined the number of subjects needed to detect a 5% change in volume. The number of subjects was multiplied by the price per test to determine relative cost.
RESULTS: As compared with the cost for the Grossman-Roudner cone method, the cost for the volume measurements was 64 to 189 times more using the cast and 373 to 33,500 more using MRI.
CONCLUSIONS: The Grossman-Roudner cone was clearly the most cost-effective method for determining breast volume changes in studies testing topical therapies to alter breast size.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16411159     DOI: 10.1007/s00266-004-0105-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg        ISSN: 0364-216X            Impact factor:   2.326


  8 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Assessment of breast volume change after transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap.

Authors:  Sang Uk Park; Jeong Su Shim
Journal:  Arch Plast Surg       Date:  2012-11-14

3.  Clinical Assessment of Breast Volume: Can 3D Imaging Be the Gold Standard?

Authors:  Renee C Killaars; Myriam L G Preuβ; Nathalie J P de Vos; Camille C J L Y van Berlo; Marc B I Lobbes; René R W J van der Hulst; Andrzej A Piatkowski
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2020-11-25

4.  Five methods of breast volume measurement: a comparative study of measurements of specimen volume in 30 mastectomy cases.

Authors:  Ragip Kayar; Serdar Civelek; Murat Cobanoglu; Osman Gungor; Hidayet Catal; Mustafa Emiroglu
Journal:  Breast Cancer (Auckl)       Date:  2011-03-27

5.  Breast Anthropometry: Values and Application in Breast Surgery for Vietnamese Women.

Authors:  Quang Hong Le; Huy Cong Nguyen
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2022-02-01

6.  Patient Satisfaction with Implant Based Breast Reconstruction Associated with Implant Volume and Mastectomy Specimen Weight Ratio.

Authors:  Woo Yeol Baek; Il Hwan Byun; Young Seok Kim; Dae Hyun Lew; Joon Jeong; Tai Suk Roh
Journal:  J Breast Cancer       Date:  2017-03-24       Impact factor: 3.588

7.  New software and breast boundary landmarks to calculate breast volumes from 3D surface images.

Authors:  T S Wesselius; R D Vreeken; A C Verhulst; T Xi; T J J Maal; D J O Ulrich
Journal:  Eur J Plast Surg       Date:  2018-07-06

8.  Verification of Usability of Medical Image Data Using Projective Photography for Designing Clothing for Breast Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Youn Joo Kim
Journal:  Tomography       Date:  2022-07-14
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.