BACKGROUND: There are many methods of measuring the breast and their clinical applications are well described in the literature. However, there has been no attempt to compare these various methods to allow the user to have a broad overview of the subject. The authors have attempted to summarise all the available methods to measure the breast in this article to provide a useful reference for all. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed was performed, and the resulting articles were screened and reviewed. The data regarding the methods' mechanism, reliability, time and cost were evaluated and compared. RESULTS: A total of 74 articles dating from 1970 to 2013 were included in this study. All of the methods can be classified into those that measure (1) volume, (2) shape and (3) surface area. Each category consists of several methods that work through different mechanisms and they vary in their reliability and feasibility. Based on their mechanism, the volume measurement methods were further grouped into the natural shape methods, the stereological method, the geometrical methods and the mathematical modelling method. CONCLUSIONS: More objective breast evaluation can be achieved if all three dimensions (volume, shape and surface area) are considered. In the volume measurements, 3D modelling and the MRI are the most reliable tools. Linear measurement (geometry) and mathematical modelling are less accurate but are more economical. In the shape measurements, besides the traditional linear measurement, 3D methods that can deliver colour-coded maps and Swanson's 2D photographic measurement system are capable of depicting and tracking breast shape changes after surgery. Although the surface area metric has not been used extensively, it has potential in clinical and research applications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
BACKGROUND: There are many methods of measuring the breast and their clinical applications are well described in the literature. However, there has been no attempt to compare these various methods to allow the user to have a broad overview of the subject. The authors have attempted to summarise all the available methods to measure the breast in this article to provide a useful reference for all. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed was performed, and the resulting articles were screened and reviewed. The data regarding the methods' mechanism, reliability, time and cost were evaluated and compared. RESULTS: A total of 74 articles dating from 1970 to 2013 were included in this study. All of the methods can be classified into those that measure (1) volume, (2) shape and (3) surface area. Each category consists of several methods that work through different mechanisms and they vary in their reliability and feasibility. Based on their mechanism, the volume measurement methods were further grouped into the natural shape methods, the stereological method, the geometrical methods and the mathematical modelling method. CONCLUSIONS: More objective breast evaluation can be achieved if all three dimensions (volume, shape and surface area) are considered. In the volume measurements, 3D modelling and the MRI are the most reliable tools. Linear measurement (geometry) and mathematical modelling are less accurate but are more economical. In the shape measurements, besides the traditional linear measurement, 3D methods that can deliver colour-coded maps and Swanson's 2D photographic measurement system are capable of depicting and tracking breast shape changes after surgery. Although the surface area metric has not been used extensively, it has potential in clinical and research applications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
Authors: Pierre G Carlier; Benjamin Marty; Olivier Scheidegger; Paulo Loureiro de Sousa; Pierre-Yves Baudin; Eduard Snezhko; Dmitry Vlodavets Journal: J Neuromuscul Dis Date: 2016-03-03
Authors: Leslie G Biesecker; Margaret P Adam; Brian Hon-Yin Chung; Kenjiro Kosaki; Leonie A Menke; Susan M White; John C Carey; Raoul C M Hennekam Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2022-09-05 Impact factor: 2.578
Authors: M Lagendijk; E L Vos; K P Ramlakhan; C Verhoef; A H J Koning; W van Lankeren; L B Koppert Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Olivia L H Tong; Astrid Chamson-Reig; Lawrence C M Yip; Muriel Brackstone; Mamadou Diop; Jeffrey J L Carson Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-08-24 Impact factor: 4.379