Literature DB >> 33791677

A Pilot Study Evaluation of 3-Dimensional Imaging in Cosmetic Breast Augmentation: Results of a Single Surgeon 3.5-Year Retrospective Study Using the BREAST-Q Questionnaire.

Lauren E Hutchinson1, Andrea D Castaldo1, Cedar H Malone1, Nicole Z Sommer1, Ashley N Amalfi1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Traditional methods of breast implant size selection provide limited ability to demonstrate postoperative outcomes. Three-dimensional (3D) imaging provides an opportunity for improved patient evaluation, surgical planning, and evaluation of postoperative breast appearance.
OBJECTIVES: The authors hypothesized that preoperative 3D imaging for patients undergoing breast augmentation would improve patient satisfaction and understanding of expected surgical outcomes.
METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing breast augmentation by a single surgeon over a 3.5-year period was performed. Patients presenting after the VECTRA was purchased had preoperative 3D imaging, while patients presenting before this did not. Eligible patients received a BREAST-Q questionnaire designed for postoperative evaluation of breast augmentation. They also received a second survey that evaluated expected vs actual breast outcomes.
RESULTS: In total, 120 surveys were mailed and 61 patients (50.8%) returned the survey. The 3D imaged group had improved BREAST-Q scores regarding satisfaction with outcome, surgeon, and physical well-being compared with the group that did not. The imaged group also had higher size, shape, and overall breast correlation scores, confidence in implant size selection scores, and communication with surgeon scores. The differences between the 2 groups were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional imaging is a valuable tool in breast surgery. Although this study showed improvement in patient satisfaction and predicted outcome scores in the 3D imaged group, the results were not statistically significant. With the majority of patients reporting that they would choose 3D imaging, it appears to instill confidence in patients regarding both surgeon and implant selection.
© 2021 The Aesthetic Society.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33791677      PMCID: PMC7953835          DOI: 10.1093/asjof/ojab005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aesthet Surg J Open Forum        ISSN: 2631-4797


  24 in total

1.  Investigation into accuracy and reproducibility of a 3D breast imaging system using multiple stereo cameras.

Authors:  Helga Henseler; Balvinder S Khambay; Adrian Bowman; Joanna Smith; J Paul Siebert; Susanne Oehler; Xiangyang Ju; Ashraf Ayoub; Arup K Ray
Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg       Date:  2010-10-13       Impact factor: 2.740

2.  Virtual 3-dimensional modeling as a valuable adjunct to aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery.

Authors:  Oren M Tepper; Kevin Small; Lauren Rudolph; Mihye Choi; Nolan Karp
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.565

3.  Objective outcome evaluation of breast surgery.

Authors:  Giovanni Maria Farinella; Gaetano Impoco; Giovanni Gallo; Salvatore Spoto; Giuseppe Catanuto; Maurizio B Nava
Journal:  Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv       Date:  2006

4.  A convenient, effective mammary sizer.

Authors:  R E Tegtmeier
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  1979-12       Impact factor: 2.326

5.  Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture: a 5-year Sientra study analysis using round, smooth, and textured implants for breast augmentation.

Authors:  W Grant Stevens; Maurice Y Nahabedian; M Bradley Calobrace; Jennifer L Harrington; Peter J Capizzi; Robert Cohen; Rosalyn C d'Incelli; Maggi Beckstrand
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 6.  Shared Decision-Making in Cosmetic Medicine and Aesthetic Surgery.

Authors:  Dirk T Ubbink; Trientje B Santema; Oren Lapid
Journal:  Aesthet Surg J       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 4.283

7.  Breast implant size selection and patient satisfaction.

Authors:  G S Brody
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1981-10       Impact factor: 4.730

8.  Asymmetry of Inframammary Folds in Patients Undergoing Augmentation Mammaplasty.

Authors:  Max Yeslev; Stephane A Braun; G Patrick Maxwell
Journal:  Aesthet Surg J       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 4.283

9.  Three-dimensional simulated images in breast augmentation surgery: an investigation of patients' satisfaction and the correlation between prediction and actual outcome.

Authors:  Andrea Donfrancesco; Paolo Montemurro; Per Hedén
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 10.  Measuring quality of life in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes instruments.

Authors:  Andrea L Pusic; Constance M Chen; Stefan Cano; Anne Klassen; Colleen McCarthy; E Dale Collins; Peter G Cordeiro
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2007-09-15       Impact factor: 4.730

View more
  2 in total

1.  Current and Future Photography Techniques in Aesthetic Surgery.

Authors:  Shyon Parsa; Berkay Basagaoglu; Kate Mackley; Patricia Aitson; Jeffrey Kenkel; Bardia Amirlak
Journal:  Aesthet Surg J Open Forum       Date:  2021-11-29

2.  Facial Feminization Surgery: A Systematic Review of Perioperative Surgical Planning and Outcomes.

Authors:  Abigail R Tirrell; Areeg A Abu El Hawa; Jenna C Bekeny; Brian L Chang; Gabriel Del Corral
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2022-03-17
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.