BACKGROUND: No publications exist describing the impact of three-dimensional imaging on the consultation process for breast augmentation, nor have existing software products claiming simulation features been validated. OBJECTIVES: The authors describe the application of four-dimensional technology during patient consultation to assist in planning implant size and type. METHODS: Forty-six primary breast augmentation patients underwent preoperative consultation with 4D simulation software; 35 out of 46 also received follow-up imaging. At six months postoperatively, simulated measurements were compared to actual measurements and questionnaires were mailed to patients asking them to assess the imaging experience. A follow-up phone survey 18 months postoperatively examined the persistence of patient attitudes about implant size and imaging. Practice productivity was evaluated by comparing specific parameters (such as scheduling rates) between three separate time periods for the same clinic. RESULTS: Across all parameters, breast augmentation simulations correlated highly with positive surgical outcomes (R-value = 0.68). The majority (95%) of patients believed the simulations were accurate; 89% also expressed that it enhanced trust in the surgeon and 74% reporting that it helped in choosing an implant size. Despite 48% also indicating that they would select a larger implant if they were to undergo surgery again, no patients have undergone reoperations of any kind. Compared to historical controls, scheduling rates in the practice increased from 40% to 77% after addition of simulation software. CONCLUSIONS: 4D breast imaging appears to be an accurate system for analysis, planning, simulation, and patient education for women considering primary breast augmentation, and application of this technology during the consultation process was correlated with a high degree of patient satisfaction and practice productivity.
BACKGROUND: No publications exist describing the impact of three-dimensional imaging on the consultation process for breast augmentation, nor have existing software products claiming simulation features been validated. OBJECTIVES: The authors describe the application of four-dimensional technology during patient consultation to assist in planning implant size and type. METHODS: Forty-six primary breast augmentation patients underwent preoperative consultation with 4D simulation software; 35 out of 46 also received follow-up imaging. At six months postoperatively, simulated measurements were compared to actual measurements and questionnaires were mailed to patients asking them to assess the imaging experience. A follow-up phone survey 18 months postoperatively examined the persistence of patient attitudes about implant size and imaging. Practice productivity was evaluated by comparing specific parameters (such as scheduling rates) between three separate time periods for the same clinic. RESULTS: Across all parameters, breast augmentation simulations correlated highly with positive surgical outcomes (R-value = 0.68). The majority (95%) of patients believed the simulations were accurate; 89% also expressed that it enhanced trust in the surgeon and 74% reporting that it helped in choosing an implant size. Despite 48% also indicating that they would select a larger implant if they were to undergo surgery again, no patients have undergone reoperations of any kind. Compared to historical controls, scheduling rates in the practice increased from 40% to 77% after addition of simulation software. CONCLUSIONS: 4D breast imaging appears to be an accurate system for analysis, planning, simulation, and patient education for women considering primary breast augmentation, and application of this technology during the consultation process was correlated with a high degree of patient satisfaction and practice productivity.
Authors: Simone La Padula; Rosita Pensato; Francesco D'Andrea; Ludovica de Gregorio; Concetta Errico; Umberto Rega; Luigi Canta; Chiara Pizza; Giovanni Roccaro; Raphaelle Billon; Endri Dibra; Jean Paul Meningaud; Barbara Hersant Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Gregory P Reece; Fatima Merchant; Johnny Andon; Hamed Khatam; K Ravi-Chandar; June Weston; Michelle C Fingeret; Chris Lane; Kelly Duncan; Mia K Markey Journal: Med Eng Phys Date: 2015-02-18 Impact factor: 2.242
Authors: Christian Chartier; Ayden Watt; Owen Lin; Akash Chandawarkar; James Lee; Elizabeth Hall-Findlay Journal: Aesthet Surg J Open Forum Date: 2021-12-11