Literature DB >> 9293675

Compression in mammography and the perception of discomfort.

A Poulos1, M Rickard.   

Abstract

Breast compression in mammography is an uncomfortable experience for most women. The discomfort experienced has the potential to deter women from attending regular breast screening by mammography. The aim of the present study was to assess factors related to the degree of discomfort experienced by women attending for first-time mammography at the Central and Eastern Sydney BreastScreen Service. Prior to the mammogram, expectations of discomfort, menstrual status, existing breast pain, and other breast problems were recorded on a questionnaire. At the time of the mammogram, breast size and weight were estimated. During the mammogram one of the craniocaudal views of the breast was taken at a slightly lower level of compression and after the procedure the participants were asked if they perceived any difference in discomfort between the normally compressed view and the less compressed view. Radiologists were asked to comment on any differences in image quality between the same two cranio-caudal films. A total of 200 women, including non-English-speaking women, participated in the present study. A total of 29% of women reported moderate, considerable or severe discomfort, a much higher level than reported in previous studies. The source of expectations (P = 0.001) had a significant relationship to the expectation of discomfort. Prior expectations (P = 0.01) and breast weight (P = 0.001) were the only factors found to have a significant relationship to the experience of discomfort. The analysis of differences in level of compression and discomfort indicates that the relationship between mammography discomfort and level of compression is complex and not simply the result of the amount of compression applied. However, analysis of the relationship of varying compression and image quality suggests that a slight lowering in the level of compression is unlikely to significantly compromise perceived image quality. Directions for further research are suggested.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9293675     DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1673.1997.tb00668.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Australas Radiol        ISSN: 0004-8461


  4 in total

1.  Analysis of motion during the breast clamping phase of mammography.

Authors:  Wang Kei Ma; Mark F McEntee; Claire Mercer; Judith Kelly; Sara Millington; Peter Hogg
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Pressure and breast thickness in mammography--an exploratory calibration study.

Authors:  P Hogg; M Taylor; K Szczepura; C Mercer; E Denton
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Comparison of technical parameters and women's experience between self-compression and standard compression modes in mammography screening: a single-blind randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Natalia Arenas; Rodrigo Alcantara; Margarita Posso; Javier Louro; Daniela Perez-Leon; Belén Ejarque; Mónica Arranz; Jose Maiques; Xavier Castells; Francesc Macià; Marta Román; Ana Rodríguez-Arana
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-05-10       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  Interventions for relieving the pain and discomfort of screening mammography.

Authors:  D Miller; V Livingstone; P Herbison
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2008-01-23
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.