Three-dimensional evaluation of breast augmentation and the influence of anatomic and round implants on operative breast shape changes

Nonadherence of Polyurethane Implants: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background  Biointegration of polyurethane (PU) implants providing their stable position years after surgery ensures predictable results of breast augmentation and reconstruction almost eliminating implant factor as a cause of complications. However, in rare cases PU implants appear to be not connected to the surrounding tissues. The aim of the study was to determine the incidence of PU implant nonadherence after primary breast augmentations and augmentation mastopexies with dual plane implant position, to analyze possible causes, and to propose preventive measures and treatment possibilities of this complication. Methods  The results of primary aesthetic surgeries in 333 patients with dual plane PU implant placement were analyzed. Patients were evaluated clinically, and pictures and videos taken in different periods after the surgery were compared. Particular attention was given to the changes in implant position and the appearance of asymmetries over time. Results  PU implant nonadherence was found in seven patients. It can be divided into primary and secondary and may be complete or partial. Primary nonadherence was found in two cases (0.6%), and secondary in five (1.5%) cases. Possible influencing factors could have been traumatic surgical technique, seroma, hematoma, or physical trauma. The average follow-up was 33 months (1 month-15 years). Conclusion  Biointegration is mandatory for the long-term predictable results with PU implants. PU implant nonadherence leads to implant malposition and may cause typical complications connected to non-PU implants. Improvements in surgical maneuvers, manufacturing process, and weight reduction of the implant may be beneficial for the stability of the results. Level of Evidence  V.

Measuring Outcomes in Aesthetic Surgery by Board-Certified Plastic Surgeons

SUMMARY

Aesthetic surgery is a visual specialty in which plastic surgeons and patients work together to enhance or restore facial and body harmony. The field of aesthetic surgery is advanced through descriptive technical procedures and outcomes research. With increasing competition in cosmetic medicine, aesthetic surgery stands to benefit from an evidence-based approach to document the high standards of care from board-certified plastic surgeons. In this article, the authors highlight challenges, current objective and subjective outcomes, and a path forward.

The Position of the Nipple-Areola Complex in Breast Augmentation

BACKGROUND

There is some controversy regarding whether the nipple-areola complex (NAC) is elevated, remains stable, or is lowered in breast augmentation. There is a general belief that one can modulate its position depending on the implant chosen. In addition, many preoperative markings include elevating the arms to predict the final position of the NAC.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate changes in the position of the NAC and determine whether the postoperative position of the NAC can be predicted preoperatively by elevating the arms.

METHODS

The study included 45 patients. A 3-dimensional scan was performed to take basal (preoperative) and 12-month measurements with the patient's arms in abduction and elevated over the head. The distances measured were the sternal notch-nipple (SN-Ni), nipple-nipple (Ni-Ni), and nipple-inframammary fold (Ni-IMF) distances.

RESULTS

With arms abducted, the SN-Ni distance increased by 6% when measured linearly, 8.5% when measured on the skin surface, and 1% to 2% when measured on the sternal line. The Ni-Ni distance increased by 9% (linear) and 15% (over the surface). The Ni-IMF increased by 44%. With arms adducted, the SN-Ni distance increased by 9% (linear), 12% (on the skin surface), and 0.5% at the sternal midline projection. The Ni-Ni distance increased 11% (linear) and 19% (on the surface). The Ni-IMF distance increased by 53%. The postoperative position of the NAC with the arms abducted increased by 17% compared with the preoperative position in adduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Implants do not elevate the NAC; its position remains nearly unaltered. The SN-Ni distance was increased in 90% of the patients. Lifting the arms for preoperative markings does not help to predict the postoperative position of the NAC.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Evaluation of Different Breast Implant Shapes in the Same Patient: Is There Really a Difference between Round and Anatomical Implants?

Background

The choice of the right implant shape is one of the most frequent debates in cosmetic breast augmentation. In current literature, the question of whether there is a difference in the appearance of different implant shapes is still an argument of highly controversial discussion. The aim of the present work was, therefore, to analyze whether any difference exists in terms of aesthetic outcome between round and anatomical implants, and if they can be distinguished from each other in a like for like swap, making sure the evaluation was made in exactly similar conditions.

Methods

Fourteen consecutive patients who underwent aesthetic breast augmentations received primarily an implant of a given volume, projection, and shape (round or anatomical) and then decided to undergo implant replacement to a different shape but maintaining the same volume and projection. At 12-months follow-up, standardized photographs were taken, blinded and randomized. They were evaluated by 10 plastic surgeons and 10 nurses.

Results

All 20 observers could distinguish between round and anatomical shape in all 14 cases (100%), which was highly significant (P < 0.0001) for each observer.

Conclusions

The present data indicate that there is a clear difference between anatomical and round-shaped implants in terms of aesthetic appearance, when a comparison is properly performed. With the use of both round and anatomical implant shapes, aesthetically appealing results can be achieved in cosmetic breast augmentation. The right implant choice must be made, based on patients' anatomy and desires.

Three-dimensional Evaluation of Results After Dual-Plane Breast Augmentation with and Without Internal Suture Mastopexy

BACKGROUND

In patients with breast atrophy and ptosis, it is necessary to correct both problems simultaneously. This study aimed to analyze breast morphological changes with a three-dimensional (3D) scanning technique to demonstrate the improvement effect of dual-plane breast augmentation combined with internal suture mastopexy.

METHODS

3D breast surface scans were performed preoperatively and postoperatively in 24 patients (n = 35 breasts) undergoing internal suture mastopexy combined with prosthetic augmentation through the periareolar approach and 24 patients (48 breasts) undergoing simple dual-plane breast augmentation. Changes in linear distance, breast volume and volume distribution, breast projection, and nipple position were analyzed to assess the breast morphology.

RESULTS

Compared with simple breast augmentation, augmentation combined with internal suture mastopexy was associated with a higher upper pole volume increase and greater medial and upward nipple displacement. After the surgery, the upper pole volume increased by an average of 10.6% in combined augmentation group and decreased by an average of 2.2% in the simple breast augmentation group. The measured breast projections were 24.8 ± 2.2% lower than expected in the combined group and 23.1 ± 4.1% lower than expected in the simple group, based on implant parameters recorded by the manufacturer. The nipple moved 0.2 ± 0.5 cm laterally, 1.6 ± 0.6 cm upward, and 2.8 ± 0.7 cm anteriorly in the combined group and 0.9 ± 0.5 cm laterally, 0.7 ± 0.6 cm upward, and 3.0 ± 0.6 cm anteriorly in the simple group.

CONCLUSIONS

Dual-plane breast augmentation in addition to internal suture mastopexy appears to reposition breast tissue from the lower pole to fill in the deficient upper breast, pull the nipple medially and superiorly, and ultimately correct mild to moderate breast ptosis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

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 .

Breast Morphological Comparison Between Anatomic and Round Implant Augmentation: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

The choice of implant shape (anatomic or round) is one of the most critical issues for breast augmentation. Determining whether there are differences in the postoperative breast morphology of the 2 implants is pivotal for surgical planning. This issue has been controversial and lacking in evidence. The aim of this study was to provide reference for implant selection by comparing breast morphology after dual-plane augmentation with anatomic and round implants using 3-dimensional scanning technology.

METHODS

Patients with implant volume less than 300 mL who underwent transaxillary dual-plane augmentation were included in this study and were grouped according to implant shape. Three-dimensional scans were performed preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. Postoperative breast height (BH), breast width (BW), BH of upper pole (BHUP), BH of lower pole (BHLP), breast projection (BP), BP of upper pole (BPUP), and BP of lower pole (BPLP) were measured separately, resulting in corresponding ratios (BH/BW, BHUP/BHLP, BP/BH, BPUP/BPLP). Breast volume, and the volumes of each pole (breast volume of upper pole [BVUP], breast volume of lower pole [BVLP]) and its ratio (BVUP/BVLP) were calculated. Correlation and regression analysis on the influencing factors of breast volume were performed.

RESULTS

Thirty patients with anatomic implants and 26 with round implants were enrolled in this study. The mean volumes of anatomic and round implants were 260.5 ± 26.7 and 267.9 ± 21.7 mL (P = 0.192). The ratios of BH/BW in the 2 groups were 1.39 ± 0.12 and 1.37 ± 0.19, respectively (P = 0.582). The BHUP/BHLP values of 2 groups were 1.35 ± 0.22 and 1.41 ± 0.25 (P = 0.160). Two sets of BPUP/BPLP were 0.68 ± 0.19 and 0.73 ± 0.17 (P = 0.133). The ratios of BP/BH in the 2 groups were 0.39 ± 0.08 and 0.39 ± 0.06 (P = 0.830). The BVUP/BVLP ratios for both groups were 0.75 ± 0.11 and 0.77 ± 0.12 (P = 0.287). There was a volume loss rate of 13.3% ± 3.9% and 13.9% ± 5% (P = 0.489). The postoperative volume showed a positive correlation with both the preoperative volume and the implant volume.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with breast dysplasia undergoing transaxillary dual-plane augmentation with anatomic or round implants less than 300 mL, the difference in postoperative breast morphology is not obvious. Using these 2 shapes of implants results in a similar degree of volume loss.

Comparison of Nasal Analysis by Photographs (2D) against Low-cost Surface Laser Imaging (3D) and against Computed Axial Tomography Imaging

Introduction In aesthetic surgery, we have a few evaluation tools that numerically and objectively measure the changes we make in patients. This article aimed to evaluate the nasal systematic analysis and compare findings between the three systems of nasal evaluation: photographs 2D, 3D surface imaging with the Kinect system, and 3D CT scan imaging.

Methods We designed a longitudinal and descriptive prospective study with simple non-blind randomization. To compare the systematic nasal analysis between the three methods. If the findings are similar, all three methods would be useful in independent clinical scenarios.

Results A total of 42 observations were included finding a minimum age of 21 with a mean of 28 years old. Also, 64% were female, 93% had adequate facial proportions, and 50% were Fitzpatrick III. For outcome statistics, we found differential nasal deviation between 3D images with a mean of 6.53 mm. While when comparing the nasal dorsum length, we found a statistical significance of p = 0.051. When comparing the nasal dorsum length index, we found no significant difference p = 0.32. Also, we did not find statistical significance when comparing the nasofrontal angle and tip rotation angle p = 1 for both.

Conclusion We found that the population we serve has characteristics of Hispanic mestizo nose. The three methods seem to evaluate systematic nasal analysis in a very similar way, and any of them can be used depending on the scenario and the needs of plastic surgeons.

Nonsubjective Assessment of Shape, Volume and Symmetry during Breast Augmentation with Handheld 3D Device

Three-dimensional Surface Imaging (3DSI) has become a valuable tool for planning and documenting surgical procedures. Although surface scanners have allowed for a better understanding of breast shape, size, and asymmetry during patient consultation, its use has not been included in intraoperative assessment so far. Validation of the reliability of the intraoperative use of a portable handheld 3DSI equipment as a tool to evaluate morphological changes during breast augmentation surgery. The patients who underwent bilateral subpectoral breast augmentation through an inframammary incision were included in this study. Intraoperative 3DSI was performed with the Artec Eva device, allowing for visualization of the surgical area before incision, after use of breast sizers and implant, and after wound closure. Intraoperatively manual measurements of breast distances and volume changes due to known sizer and implant volumes were in comparison with digital measurements calculated from 3DSI of the surgical area. Bilateral breasts of 40 patients were 3D photographed before incision and after suture successfully. A further 108 implant sizer uses were digitally documented. There was no significant difference between manual tape measurement and digital breast distance measurement. Pre- to postoperative 3D volume change showed no significant difference to the known sizer and implant volume.

Intraoperative 3D Comparison of Round and Anatomical Breast Implants: Dispelling a Myth

Background: Thanks to 3D imaging, it is possible to measure the influence of different parameters on breast augmentation. In this study, we compare the effect of different shapes and sizes of breast implants on the topography of the resulting breast. Furthermore, the impact of different breast implants on inter-landmark distances and on changes of the nipple position was assessed. Methods: This interventional prospective study was carried out on 10 female patients after collecting informed consent. 3D scans of the native and augmented breasts were performed intraoperatively with small, medium, and large sizes of both anatomical and round implants, resulting in a total of n = 130 single breast scans. These scans were analyzed for topographic shift quantification, nipple migration, and inter-landmark distances of the breast. Results: Implant size, but not implant shape leads to significant topographic shifts of the breast (p < 0.001 and p = 0.900, respectively). Both round and anatomical implants lead to a significantly higher volumetric increase in the upper quadrants compared to the lower quadrants (p < 0.001). Nipple migration into the superomedial quadrant was seen in about 90% of augmentations. No evident differences in inter-landmark distances were observed when round and anatomical implants of different sizes were compared. Conclusions: Implant size rather than shape influences the postoperative aesthetic results. No significant difference in topographic shift was found comparing round and anatomical implants, suggesting that both implant shapes result in comparable aesthetic outcomes.

An Analysis of Ptosis following Subfascial Breast Augmentation: Calculations That Explain Dogma

BACKGROUND

Implant placement can improve ptosis due to the position of the nipple, inframammary crease, and base of the breast acting together. The interrelationship between these was quantified via changes in morphometry following subfascial augmentation, and explains the circumstances under which dogma holds true.

METHODS

One hundred seventy-five patients underwent a series of static measurements before and 3 months after subfascial breast augmentation. Ptosis in the nipple and base of the breast was calculated before and after surgery.

RESULTS

All measurements except that of the the lateral sternal margin increased after surgery. All grades of ptosis reduced following surgery. There was lowering of the base in grade 1 patients, but not for other grades. Increased base ptosis correlated with reduced lateral sternal margin (1.9 cm compared with 2.9 cm; left, H5 = 24.7, p < 0.01; right, H5 = 24.5, p < 0.01). Implant volume did not correlate with change in ptosis at the nipple or base. Reduced ptosis was associated with implants that are a narrow match of implant to breast (0.52 to 0.95) (left, H5 = 28.3, p < 0.01; right, H5 = 24.9, p < 0.01). Decreasing ptosis correlated with lower lateral sternal margin compared to breasts that increased ptosis. Change in ptosis following surgery does not correlate with having children.

CONCLUSIONS

Subfascial placement has varying effects on ptosis. Non-ptotic or mildly ptotic breasts appear to improve due to a disproportionate descent of the inframammary crease relative to the nipple and base. Patients with little breast tissue are more susceptible to an increase in "bottoming out," particularly if broad implants are used. A ratio matching implant to the base width has predictive value on outcome.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

[Impact of breast dimension in one-stage augmentation mastopexies on implant selection: review of 103 consecutive breast augmentations with nanotextured silicone implants]

INTRODUCTION

According to current studies, one-stage augmentation mastopexy (AM) is associated with only minor complications and a lower reoperation rate compared with a staged procedure. In AM, breast dimension can differ notably compared with those cases without simultaneous mastopexy. However, these differences have only been insufficiently investigated. This study aims to quantify the differences and then evaluate the effect of breast dimension on implant selection. In addition, it evaluates the influence of mastopexy on the outcome of augmentation mammoplasties with round nanotextured silicone gel implants.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Over a two-year period, all patients with primary augmentation mammoplasties using nanotextured implants were included in the study. Patients' demographic data, breast measurements, specifications of the implants placed, and complications in the breast augmentation group without mastopexy were compared with those of the group with AM. The satisfaction of patients and surgeons was documented using Likert scales.

RESULTS

A total of 206 breast augmentations were performed in n = 103 patients. The mean follow-up was 24.0 ± 4.3 months. Compared with augmentations without an indication for simultaneous mastopexy, the AM group had wider breast bases and larger preoperative cup sizes; p < 0.001. As a result, implants selected for AM had greater diameters and lower volumes (p < 0.05) and were associated with smaller projections; p < 0.001. The total revision rates after augmentations without (n = 51) and with combined mastopexy (n = 52) were 5.9 % and 19.2 % (p < 0.05), respectively. AM increased tissue-related revisions from 2.0 % to 13.4 % (p < 0.05) without having an impact on implant-related revisions (3.9 % vs. 5.8 %, p = 0.663). The overall incidence of capsular contracture was 1.9 %. Satisfaction levels were approximately equal in both groups.

CONCLUSION

In comparison to augmentations without mastopexy, wider breast bases and larger breast volumes before surgery lead to the selection of significantly different implant dimensions in AM. Nanotextured silicone implants are associated with low complication rates, while an increased risk for tissue-related revisions of the combined procedure remains. Further studies are necessary in order to evaluate possible advantages and disadvantages over established implants.

A Prospective Study of Breast Morphological Changes and the Correlative Factors After Periareolar Dual-Plane Augmentation Mammaplasty with Anatomic Implant

BACKGROUND

Dual-plane breast augmentation is a popular cosmetic procedure. However, objective evaluations on the effects of dual-plane breast augmentation on breast morphology are lacking. This study evaluated the breast morphological changes and correlative factors after dual-plane anatomic implant augmentation with a periareolar incision via a Vectra 3-dimensional (3D) scanning technique.

METHODS

The dynamic changes in linear distance, breast projection, nipple position, and breast volume and surface over time (preoperatively; 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery) were analyzed in 21 patients with the Vectra 3D scanning technique. In another group of 65 patients, the influence of the implant parameters and tissue characteristics of the patients on breast morphological changes were evaluated.

RESULTS

The breast measurements changed significantly up to 6 months postoperatively and remained stable thereafter. The inframammary fold dropped by 0.8 cm at 1 month postoperatively and by 0.5 cm in the following 11 months. The preoperative implant volume and a lower pole skin elasticity lead to an increase in the nipple-to-inframammary fold distance. Compared with the expected values, the final volume was 10.9% smaller, and the projection was 25% smaller. Both the reduced volume and projection were correlated with the implant parameters and preoperative values. The nipple level was slightly elevated by approximately 0.8 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides objective information regarding the breast morphological changes and correlative factors after dual-plane breast augmentation. These information may help to further understand the operation effects of dual-plane breast augmentation and to guide medical practice.

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 .

New aspects in digital breast assessment: further refinement of a method for automated digital anthropometry

Purpose

In this trial, we used a previously developed prototype software to assess aesthetic results after reconstructive surgery for congenital breast asymmetry using automated anthropometry. To prove the consensus between the manual and automatic digital measurements, we evaluated the software by comparing the manual and automatic measurements of 46 breasts.

Methods

Twenty-three patients who underwent reconstructive surgery for congenital breast asymmetry at our institution were examined and underwent 3D surface imaging. Per patient, 14 manual and 14 computer-based anthropometric measurements were obtained according to a standardized protocol. Manual and automatic measurements, as well as the previously proposed Symmetry Index (SI), were compared.

Results

The Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed no significant differences in six of the seven measurements between the automatic and manual assessments. The SI showed robust agreement between the automatic and manual methods.

Conclusion

The present trial validates our method for digital anthropometry. Despite the discrepancy in one measurement, all remaining measurements, including the SI, showed high agreement between the manual and automatic methods. The proposed data bring us one step closer to the long-term goal of establishing robust instruments to evaluate the results of breast surgery.

Level of evidence: IV.

"Topographic Shift": a new digital approach to evaluating topographic changes of the female breast

PURPOSE

To assess precise topographic changes of the breast, objective documentation and evaluation of pre- and postoperative results are crucial. New technologies for mapping the body using digital, three-dimensional surface measurements have offered novel ways to numerically assess the female breast. Due to the lack of clear demarcation points of the breast contour, the selection of landmarks on the breast is highly dependent on the examiner, and, therefore, is prone to error when conducting before-after comparisons of the same breast. This study describes an alternative to volumetric measurements, focusing on topographic changes of the female breast, based on three-dimensional scans.

METHOD

The study was designed as an interventional prospective study of 10 female volunteers who had planned on having aesthetic breast augmentation with anatomical, textured implants. Three dimensional scans of the breasts were performed intraoperatively, first without and then with breast implants. The topographic change was determined as the mean distance between two three-dimensional layers before and after augmentation. This mean distance is defined as the Topographic Shift.

RESULTS

The mean implant volume was 283 cc (SD = 68.6 cc, range = 210-395 cc). The mean Topographic Shift was 7.4 mm (SD = 1.9 mm, range = 4.8-10.7 mm). The mean Topographic Shifts per quadrant were: I: 8.0 mm (SD = 3.3 mm); II: 9.2 mm (SD = 3.1 mm); III: 6.9 mm (SD = 3.5 mm); IV: 1.9 mm (SD = 4.3 mm).

CONCLUSION

The Topographic Shift, describing the mean distance between two three-dimensional layers (for example before and after a volume changing therapy), is a new approach that can be used for assessing topographic changes of a body area. It was found that anatomical, textured breast implants cause a topographic change, particularly on the upper breast, in quadrant II, the décolleté.

Laser-speckle-projection-based handheld anthropometric measurement system with synchronous redundancy reduction

Human body measurement is essential in modern rehabilitation medicine, which can be effectively combined with the technology of additive manufacturing. Digital image correlation based on laser speckle projection is a single-shot, accurate, and robust technique for human body measurement. In this paper, we present a handheld anthropometric measurement system based on laser speckle projection. A flexible retroreflective marker target is designed for multi-view data registration. Meanwhile, a synchronous redundancy-reduction algorithm based on a re-projected global disparity map is proposed. Experiment results validate that the proposed system is effective and accurate for different human body part measurements. Comparative experiments show that the proposed redundancy-reduction algorithm has high efficiency and can effectively preserve the features of complex shapes. The comprehensive performance of the algorithm is better than the other two tested methods.

Optimal intraoperative selection of the projection of silicone breast implant using simplified cotton sizers

Background

It is occasionally difficult to accurately measure the projection of the unaffected breast in unilateral breast reconstruction and decide the optimal projection of a silicone breast implant (SBI). SBI ready-made sizers are useful for selecting the optimal SBI; however, the cost of procuring multiple types of this ready-made sizers is high. Therefore, we aimed to develop a novel technique for selecting SBIs using simplified cotton sizers, intraoperatively.

Methods

We applied the novel technique on 15 patients who underwent SBI-based breast reconstruction after simple mastectomy, among whom two or three SBI candidates had similar height and width but different projection. The breast reconstructed using a cotton SBI sizer was compared with the unaffected breast in the sitting position. We then selected the optimal SBI with a little higher projection than that of the unaffected breast. At the postoperative 1 year, we confirmed whether we could select better SBI among the prepared SBIs.

Results

Creating and applying the cotton SBI sizer required approximately 10 min in all cases. Optimal SBI selection among the prepared SBIs was seen in 14 cases; capsule contracture occurred in 1 case.

Conclusions

A simplified cotton SBI sizer is recommended because it is easy and inexpensive to develop and provides reliable assistance in identifying the optimal SBI projection.

Surgical Outcomes of Implant-based Breast Reconstruction Using TiLoop Bra Mesh Combined With Pectoralis Major Disconnection

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare breast symmetry and patient satisfaction with breast appearance between implant-based breast reconstruction using TiLoop Bra mesh combined with pectoralis major disconnection (IMR) and conventional implant reconstruction (IR), and to analyze differences in complications.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 59 patients administered IMR or IR in 2016 to 2018. Three-dimensional scanning was performed to objectively evaluate breast symmetry. The BREAST-Q scale was used to survey satisfaction with breast appearance, social psychosocial health, physical health, and sexual well-being.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in age, TNM stage, and chemotherapy between the 2 groups (all P > 0.05). In 3-dimensional scanning data, patients who underwent IMR had better bilateral breast symmetry compared with those administered IR (all P < 0.001). Based on the BREAST-Q survey, the satisfaction rate was significantly higher for IMR compared with IR (P = 0.0368), whereas psychosocial health, physical health, and sexual well-being showed no significant differences between the 2 groups (all P > 0.05). The IMR model showed no obvious advantages in common complications, including hematoma, incision site infection, skin flap necrosis, and prosthesis exposure and rupture compared with IR; loss of skin and nipple sensations was evident in both groups. The IMR model was associated with reduced incidence of fibrous capsule contracture compared with IR (0% vs 18.75%, P = 0.0267). The incidence rates of pectoralis major disconnection syndrome after IMR and IR were 18.50% and 0%, respectively (P = 0.0161).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients administered IMR have better breast symmetry and greater satisfaction with breast appearance compared with those treated by IR; however, IMR has unique complications, including pectoralis major disconnection syndrome.

3D Mammometric Changes in the Treatment of Idiopathic Gynecomastia

BACKGROUND

Three-dimensional surface imaging (3DSI) has shown promise for plastic surgeons to objectively assess changes in body contour and breast volume.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the surgical outcome after bilateral subcutaneous mastectomy (BSM) and water jet-assisted liposuction (WAL) as treatment for idiopathic gynecomastia, using 3DSI to document changes regarding nipple-areolar complex (NAC) and breast volume.

METHODS

Thirty male patients (Simon II A to B) receiving BSM and WAL were enrolled. Eight subjects received additional mastopexy and NAC reduction. Use of a Vectra 3D Imaging System^® before and 6 months after surgery provided data regarding changes of NAC placement and NAC and breast dimensions. The sum volume of intraoperatively approximated lipoaspirate before and after centrifugation and mastectomy specimens quantified using water displacement were compared with 3D-assessed differences in volume.

RESULTS

When compared to the NAC dimensions defined during surgery, patients receiving NAC reductions showed nonsignificant postoperative changes in NAC dimensions. Patients without additional mastopexy showed a significant (p < 0.001) vertical (15.7 ± 14.3%) and horizontal (17.1 ± 15.0%) reduction in NAC diameter. 3D volume changes (92.8 ± 26.4 mL) showed significant differences (p < 0.001) 6 months after surgery compared to the intraoperatively measured lipoaspirate before (182 ± 54.5 mL) and after (120 ± 34.6 mL) centrifugation.

CONCLUSION

Although it is clear that patient satisfaction must remain the prime focus of surgical body contouring, 3DSI has proven valuable to objectively demonstrate both the anticipated outcome and further findings regarding treatment of idiopathic gynecomastia.

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 .

Does 2-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Allow for a Larger Volume of the Definite Implant Compared With 1-Stage Reconstruction?

INTRODUCTION

Breast reconstruction using implants is still the main breast reconstruction technique worldwide. Current debate within implant-based breast reconstruction is whether to perform a 1-stage (direct implant) or 2-stage (tissue expander/implant) reconstruction. Volume differences between a woman's native breast and changes in volume after breast reconstruction might be an important factor for a patient's choice between these types of reconstruction. Three-dimensional imaging facilitates objective breast volume estimates. The goal of this study was to investigate differences between the patient's natural breast and the volume after completed breast reconstruction. One- and two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction techniques were compared. Finally, it was assessed whether patient satisfaction is causally related with the final breast volume after reconstruction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 38 patients were included in the study, including 35 two-stage breast reconstructions and 27 one-stage reconstructions. Preoperative and postoperative 3-dimensional images of the breast with the Vectra XT Imaging system were taken. Volume analysis was performed to estimate the patient's native breast volume. Implant size were derived from the operation report. A mean volume reduction for the 1-stage reconstruction group was found -1 mL, whereas an increase of +80 mL was found in the 2-stage reconstruction group (P < 0.005). Patient satisfaction related to volume outcome was not significantly different between both groups, using the Breast-Q questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that a 2-stage breast reconstruction has the potential of an increased breast volume compared with a similar breast volume in 1-stage reconstruction.

Round versus Anatomical Implants in Primary Cosmetic Breast Augmentation: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Choosing implant shape (round or anatomical) is one of the most essential yet controversial decisions in cosmetic breast augmentation. Many surgeons choose implant shape based on personal experience or expert opinion. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the aesthetic effect between anatomical and round implants in primary cosmetic breast augmentation.

METHODS

The authors searched the PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, ScienceDirect, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for studies that compared anatomical and round implants in primary cosmetic breast augmentation. Primary outcomes were postoperative aesthetic effect and correct identification rate of implant shape. Random effects models were used to obtain pooled standardized mean difference and 95 percent confidence intervals.

RESULTS

One randomized comparative and four observational comparative studies met the inclusion criteria. No aesthetic superiority was found in the anatomical implant group with regard to overall appearance (standardized mean difference, 0.06; 95 percent CI, -0.40 to 0.53), naturalness (standardized mean difference, 0.18; 95 percent CI, -1.51 to 1.15), projection, upper pole contour, and lower pole contour. Pooled correct identification rate of implant shape by plastic surgeons was 52 percent (95 percent CI, 0.46 to 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, anatomical implants do not seem to have an aesthetic superiority compared to round implants. Plastic surgeons seemed to be unable to accurately differentiate the two implant shapes in vivo. Further studies should focus on identifying the specific indications for the use of anatomical implants.

The Effect of Respiration on Breast Measurement Using Three-dimensional Breast Imaging

BACKGROUND

Three-dimensional (3D) imaging offers new opportunities to enable objective and quantitative analysis of the breast. Unlike scanning of rigid objects, respiration may be one of the factors that can influence the measurement of breast when using 3D imaging. In this study, we aimed to investigate how the different respiratory phases affect 3D morphologic and volumetric evaluations of the breast.

METHODS

We performed preoperative 3D breast imaging at the end of expiration (EE) and the end of inspiration (EI). We repeated scans on each respiratory phase, taking four scans in total (EE1, EE2 and EI1, EI2). Using Geomagic Studio 12 software, measurements from the different respiratory phases (EE1 and EI1) were compared for differences in the linear distances of breast. Breast volumetric change error (BVCE) was measured between EE1 and EE2 (R1) and between EI1 and EI2 (R2). A multilevel model was used to analyze the difference of linear-distances parameters between EE1 and EI1 and a paired sample t-test was used to analyze the difference between R1 and R2.

RESULTS

Our study included 13 Chinese women (26 breasts) with a mean age of 32.6 ± 6.3 years. Compared with EI, EE showed a longer sternal notch to the level of the inframammary fold and shorter nipple to midline (p < 0.05). During EI, breast projection increased by 0.23 cm (95% CI - 0.39, - 0.08) and breast base width increased by 0.27 cm (95% CI - 0.46, - 0.09). The position of the nipple moved by 0.18 cm (95% CI - 0.34, - 0.03) laterally, 0.41 cm (95% CI 0.18, 0.64) cranially, and 0.71 cm (95% CI - 0.92, - 0.51) anteriorly. Although there was no significant difference in BVCE between EE and EI, the result seen with EE appeared to be more consistent.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study demonstrate that there was no difference in breast volume results when patients are in the expiratory or inspiratory state during 3D breast imaging. This study, however, holds potential benefits to both surgical practice as well as the 3D imaging industry.

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 .

Chances and limitations of a low-cost mobile 3D scanner for breast imaging in comparison to an established 3D photogrammetric system

BACKGROUND

In search of new possibilities in 3D surface imaging, several nonmedical scanning systems have been assessed for their implementation in plastic surgery. The aim of this study was to compare a new affordable 3D imaging consumer product with an established medical 3D imaging system for objective 3D breast imaging.

METHOD

We compared a low-cost mobile, handheld scanner against an established medical 3D surface imaging system. Forty-two female patients who underwent different types of breast surgery were captured in a 3D view with both devices. Digital breast measurement, volume measurement, and breast surface-to-surface analysis were done using Mirror software. Repeatability was assessed by repeated 3D scans of the torso and surface-to-surface analysis.

RESULTS

Digital breast measurement showed low differences with good-to-excellent correlation between both devices. Mean breast volume difference was small (-5.11 ± 32.10 mL) within the 95% limits of agreement. Surface-to-surface analysis yielded a higher surface deviation in the lower breast quadrants (1.62 ± 0.80 mm root mean square [RMS] error and 1.81 ± 0.88 mm RMS error) than in the upper breast quadrants. Repeatability was satisfactory with a mean of 0.636 ± 0.279 mm RMS error.

CONCLUSION

Affordable mobile surface scanners may offer new perspectives in the future for 3D breast imaging. Although surface acquisition was sufficient for breast measurements in comparison to an established system, the lack of appropriate medical software for patient consultation next to moderate texture quality needs to be improved for wider acceptance in plastic surgery.

The Effect of Implant Type on Nipple Position Geometry and Aesthetics Following Tissue Expander Reconstruction After Nipple Sparing Mastectomy

BACKGROUND

While recent studies have reported modest to no difference in breast aesthetics for shaped and round implant types in breast augmentations, the anatomy and biomechanics in the setting of breast reconstruction is different.

OBJECTIVES

Accordingly, we endeavored to evaluate whether two implant types impacted nipple position and aesthetic features in prosthetic breast reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was carried out on patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with immediate tissue expander breast reconstruction. Patients were divided into two cohorts: smooth round implants and textured shaped implants. Postoperative photographs were evaluated to assess nipple displacement vis-à-vis a vector of maximal projection and aesthetic outcome for features of breast shape.

RESULTS

Of 102 breasts meeting the inclusion criteria, 41 had tissue expander-implant reconstruction with anatomical shaped implants, and 61 had reconstruction with smooth round implants. The shaped implant cohort had less nipple deviation from the point of maximal projection (3.69 ± 6.24 vs 7.52 ± 10.50; P < 0.0001). Graded semi-quantitative aesthetic scores were also higher (4.04 ± 0.67 vs 3.72 ± 0.93; P = 0.0044) in the shaped implants than in the round cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Unlike breast augmentation, there is a paucity of overlying breast tissue and larger dissected spaces in prosthetic breast reconstruction. Our analysis suggests that in this setting, textured anatomic implants result in less nipple deviation from the point of maximum projection and improved aesthetic outcomes compared to round implants. When considering implant choice in NSM reconstruction, the manifold risks of shaped textured implants must thus be informed by potential aesthetic benefits with respect to shape and enhanced nipple sensation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 4

Current Trends in Breast Augmentation: An International Analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast augmentation surgery remains the most frequently performed aesthetic surgical procedure worldwide. However, many variations exist regarding preoperative planning, surgical management, and postoperative care.

OBJECTIVES

The goal was to evaluate current trends and practices in breast augmentation, with a focus on international variability.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to over 5000 active breast surgeons in 44 countries worldwide. The survey inquired about current controversies, new technologies, common practices, secondary procedures, and surgeon demographics. The findings and variations were evaluated and correlated to evidence-based literature.

RESULTS

There were a total 628 respondents equaling a response rate of approximately 18%. While certain approaches and common practices prevail also on an international basis, there exist several geographic controversies. For example, while almost fifty percent of surgeons in the United States and Latin America never use anatomically shaped implants, in Europe and Oceania most surgeons use them. Similarly, in Latin America, Europe, Asia, and Oceania, over 80% of surgeons use silicone implants only, whereas in the United States only 20% use them - meanwhile US surgeons use the largest implants (78% > 300 cc). Internationally dominant practice preferences include preoperative sizing with silicone implants, as well as the use of inframammary incisions and partial submuscular pockets.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences exist when comparing most common surgical breast augmentation approaches on an international basis. While certain techniques seem to be universal standards, there still remain several controversies. Further standardizing this most common aesthetic surgical procedure according to evidence-based guidelines will help to improve outcomes.

Do Not Fear an Implant's Shape: A Single Surgeon's Experience of Over 1200 Round and Shaped Textured Implants in Primary Breast Augmentation

BACKGROUND

Breast implants can be characterized by their fill material, surface texture, or shape. Whereas long-term good quality studies have provided evidence for the fill material and texture, there is still little consensus for choosing the shape of an implant. Surveys indicate that many surgeons choose only one implant shape, for reasons that may not always agree with outcomes from long-term studies.

OBJECTIVES

We reviewed the first author's experience over the last six years with both round and anatomical implants, compared the rate of complications with either implant shape, and discussed the importance of keeping an open mind about using both implant shapes for primary breast augmentation.

METHODS

A review of all consecutive primary breast augmentation patients by the first author over a six-year time period who had a minimum follow up of 6 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Six-hundred and forty-eight female patients had 1296 silicone breast implants inserted over the six-year period. Mean age at surgery was 30.5 years and mean BMI was 20.6 kg/m2. All implants were textured, 134 (in 67 patients, 10.3%) were round in shape with mean volume of 338 cc (range, 220-560 cc), while 1162 implants (in 581 patients, 89.7%) were anatomical shaped with a mean volume of 309 cc (range, 140-615 cc). Among these patients, 11.9% (n = 8) with round implants and 9.0% (n = 52) of those with anatomical implants developed complications postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

A single, ideal implant that is suitable for every primary breast augmentation does not exist. The optimum choice of implant shape in any given situation should take into account the patient's physical characteristics, available implant types, patient's desires, and the surgeon's experience. Together with round implants, anatomical devices ought to be considered as one of the tools in the surgeon's toolbox. By choosing to ignore them a priori means that the surgeon will only have access to half of his armamentarium and will therefore be able to offer a limited set of options to his patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 4

Intraoperative Comparison of Anatomical versus Round Implants in Breast Augmentation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to determine whether anatomical implants are aesthetically superior to round implants in breast augmentation.

METHODS

Seventy-five patients undergoing primary breast augmentation had a round silicone implant of optimal volume, projection, and diameter placed in one breast and an anatomical silicone device of similar volume and optimal shape placed in the other. After intraoperative photographs were taken, the anatomical device was replaced by a round implant to complete the procedure. A survey designed to measure breast aesthetics was administered to 10 plastic surgeon and 10 lay reviewers for blind evaluation of the 75 cases.

RESULTS

No observable difference in breast aesthetics between anatomical and round implants was reported by plastic surgeons in 43.6 percent or by lay individuals in 29.2 percent of cases. When a difference was perceived, neither plastic surgeons nor lay individuals preferred the anatomical side more often than the round side. Plastic surgeons judged the anatomical side superior in 51.1 percent of cases and the round side superior in 48.9 percent of cases (p = 0.496). Lay individuals judged the anatomical side superior in 46.7 percent of cases and the round side superior in 53.3 percent (p = 0.140). Plastic surgeons identified implant shape correctly in only 26.5 percent of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides high-level evidence supporting no aesthetic superiority of anatomical over round implants. Given that anatomical implants have important and unique disadvantages, a lack of proven aesthetic superiority argues against their continued use in breast augmentation.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, I.

Preoperative implant selection for unilateral breast reconstruction using 3D imaging with the Microsoft Kinect sensor

AIMS

This study aimed to investigate whether breast volume measured preoperatively using a Kinect 3D sensor could be used to determine the most appropriate implant size for reconstruction.

METHODS

Ten patients underwent 3D imaging before and after unilateral implant-based reconstruction. Imaging used seven configurations, varying patient pose and Kinect location, which were compared regarding suitability for volume measurement. Four methods of defining the breast boundary for automated volume calculation were compared, and repeatability assessed over five repetitions.

RESULTS

The most repeatable breast boundary annotation used an ellipse to track the inframammary fold and a plane describing the chest wall (coefficient of repeatability: 70 ml). The most reproducible imaging position comparing pre- and postoperative volume measurement of the healthy breast was achieved for the sitting patient with elevated arms and Kinect centrally positioned (coefficient of repeatability: 141 ml). Optimal implant volume was calculated by correcting used implant volume by the observed postoperative asymmetry. It was possible to predict implant size using a linear model derived from preoperative volume measurement of the healthy breast (coefficient of determination R² = 0.78, standard error of prediction 120 ml). Mastectomy specimen weight and experienced surgeons' choice showed similar predictive ability (both: R² = 0.74, standard error: 141/142 ml). A leave one-out validation showed that in 61% of cases, 3D imaging could predict implant volume to within 10%; however for 17% of cases it was >30%.

CONCLUSION

This technology has the potential to facilitate reconstruction surgery planning and implant procurement to maximise symmetry after unilateral reconstruction.

Predictability of anthropomorphic measurements in implant selection for breast reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Preoperative implant planning for breast reconstruction is often at risk of being changed perioperatively. This study examined which factors are associated with a change of implant selection.

Methods

Women who had unilateral two-stage breast reconstruction between 2002 and 2007 were studied. Inclusion criteria were photographic evidence of preoperative skin markings indicating breast dimensions and a selected implant model. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with a changed selection.

Results

Among the 496 women studied, 308 preoperative implant choices (62.1%) were changed during surgery. A change in plan was significantly associated with symmetrization surgery involving contralateral reduction mammaplasty (OR = 1.92; 95% CI, 1.12 to 3.29) and contralateral mastopexy (OR = 2.26; 95% CI, 1.29 to 3.96), but not with BMI. The required implant width changed more than 0.5 cm in 70 cases (14.1%) while height changed more than 0.5 cm in 215 cases (43.2%). The likelihood of a change was high for large preoperative widths (OR = 9.66 for 15.5 cm) and small preoperative heights (OR = 2.97 for 10.5 cm). At a mean follow-up of 16.6 months, patient satisfaction was good or average in 92.1% of cases and 5.9% of implants had been replaced with another model, indicating that the perioperative implant selection was usually appropriate.

Conclusions

This study documents the frequency with which implant choices, despite accurate preoperative planning, are changed perioperatively as a result of relatively small differences in anthropomorphic measurements. Perioperative recalculation of breast dimensions may have an advantage in terms of patient reoperation rates. Changes in width were less frequent than changes in height and projection. Contralateral surgery, large width, and small height were the most influential factors.

Level of Evidence: Level IV, risk / prognostic study.

Breast volumetric analysis for aesthetic planning in breast reconstruction: a literature review of techniques

BACKGROUND

Accurate volumetric analysis is an essential component of preoperative planning in both reconstructive and aesthetic breast procedures towards achieving symmetrization and patient-satisfactory outcome. Numerous comparative studies and reviews of individual techniques have been reported. However, a unifying review of all techniques comparing their accuracy, reliability, and practicality has been lacking.

METHODS

A review of the published English literature dating from 1950 to 2015 using databases, such as PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, and EMBASE, was undertaken.

RESULTS

Since Bouman's first description of water displacement method, a range of volumetric assessment techniques have been described: thermoplastic casting, direct anthropomorphic measurement, two-dimensional (2D) imaging, and computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. However, most have been unreliable, difficult to execute and demonstrate limited practicability. Introduction of 3D surface imaging has revolutionized the field due to its ease of use, fast speed, accuracy, and reliability. However, its widespread use has been limited by its high cost and lack of high level of evidence. Recent developments have unveiled the first web-based 3D surface imaging program, 4D imaging, and 3D printing.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite its importance, an accurate, reliable, and simple breast volumetric analysis tool has been elusive until the introduction of 3D surface imaging technology. However, its high cost has limited its wide usage. Novel adjunct technologies, such as web-based 3D surface imaging program, 4D imaging, and 3D printing, appear promising.

Evaluation of the effects of silicone implants on the breast parenchyma

BACKGROUND

Despite being the cosmetic procedure most performed worldwide, there are still few objective measurements of postoperative volumetric analysis of breast augmentation available in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate volumetric changes in the breast parenchyma after the placement of silicone implants in the subglandular plane.

METHODS

Thirty-four women were randomly allocated to the intervention group (n = 24), who underwent breast augmentation in the subglandular plane, or to the control group (n = 10), who received no intervention. Volumetric magnetic resonance imaging was performed at inclusion, and after 6 and 12 months in all participants. The non-parametric Friedman's test was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

There was a significant reduction in glandular volume (mean, 22%) at 12 months postoperatively in patients who underwent breast augmentation.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast augmentation caused reduction in the volume of the breast parenchyma.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Therapeutic.

Development of a Three-Dimensional Hand Model Using Three-Dimensional Stereophotogrammetry: Assessment of Image Reproducibility

Purpose

Using three-dimensional (3D) stereophotogrammetry precise images and reconstructions of the human body can be produced. Over the last few years, this technique is mainly being developed in the field of maxillofacial reconstructive surgery, creating fusion images with computed tomography (CT) data for precise planning and prediction of treatment outcome. Though, in hand surgery 3D stereophotogrammetry is not yet being used in clinical settings.

Methods

A total of 34 three-dimensional hand photographs were analyzed to investigate the reproducibility. For every individual, 3D photographs were captured at two different time points (baseline T0 and one week later T1). Using two different registration methods, the reproducibility of the methods was analyzed. Furthermore, the differences between 3D photos of men and women were compared in a distance map as a first clinical pilot testing our registration method.

Results

The absolute mean registration error for the complete hand was 1.46 mm. This reduced to an error of 0.56 mm isolating the region to the palm of the hand. When comparing hands of both sexes, it was seen that the male hand was larger (broader base and longer fingers) than the female hand.

Conclusions

This study shows that 3D stereophotogrammetry can produce reproducible images of the hand without harmful side effects for the patient, so proving to be a reliable method for soft tissue analysis. Its potential use in everyday practice of hand surgery needs to be further explored.

Development of a three-dimensional hand model using 3D stereophotogrammetry: Evaluation of landmark reproducibility

BACKGROUND

Using three-dimensional (3D) photography, exact images of the human body can be produced. Over the last few years, this technique is mainly being developed in the field of maxillofacial reconstructive surgery, creating fusion images with computed tomography (CT) data for accurate planning and prediction of treatment outcome. However, in hand surgery, 3D photography is not yet being used in clinical settings.

METHODS

The aim of this study was to develop a valid method for imaging the hand using 3D stereophotogrammetry. The reproducibility of 30 soft tissue landmarks was determined using 3D stereophotogrammetric images. Analysis was performed by two observers on 20 3D photographs. Reproducibility and reliability of the landmark identification were determined using statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The intra- and interobserver reproducibility of the landmarks were high. This study showed a high reliability coefficient for intraobserver (1.00) and interobserver reliability (0.99). Identification of the landmarks on the palmar aspect of individual fingers was more precise than the identification of landmarks of the thumb.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that 3D photography can safely produce accurate and reproducible images of the hand, which makes the technique a reliable method for soft tissue analysis. 3D images can be a helpful tool in pre- and postoperative evaluation of reconstructive trauma surgery, in aesthetic surgery of the hand, and for educational purposes. The use in everyday practice of hand surgery and the concept of fusing 3D photography images with radiologic images of the interior hand structures needs to be further explored.

Preoperative assessment tool for the planning of inframammary incision and implant profile in breast augmentation

When using the inframammary access incision for breast augmentation, careful planning is critical to allow the surgeon to set the inframammary fold (IMF) at the most optimal position, minimize scar visibility, and mitigate the main disadvantage of this approach. Current popular evaluation systems for breast augmentation include the High Five and Randquist systems and they base their calculations on inconsistent variables like skin stretch measurements. We propose a simple method that is not dependent on skin stretch measurements to properly determine implant size, profile, and position of the inframammary fold. Excluding digital scans and computer-based systems that are not universally available, the proposed simplified assessment tool was compared to the two most popular manual measuring tools (High Five and Randquist). Twenty-five female volunteers were included in the study. The projected IMF positions over the midsternal line for each measuring tool were recorded on each patient and the sternal notch (SN) to projected IMF distance SN-IMF1 (simplified evaluation system), SN-IMF2 (High Five System), and SN-IMF3 (Randquist system) were compared. The anticipated new IMF position is determined based on the vertical implant dimension and not on breast base width. For most subjects, the differences between the three evaluation systems were minimal. The proposed breast measurement tool constitutes a new, much simpler, and practical method that proved to be successful in our hands.

Contralateral breast volume measurement during chest CT for postmastectomy breast reconstruction

OBJECTIVE

Successful breast reconstruction after mastectomy may be guided by knowledge of the contralateral breast volume. Three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction based on a CT examination was used to determine the volume of the contralateral normal breast before postmastectomy breast reconstruction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventeen female patients scheduled for postmastectomy breast reconstruction using silicon implant prostheses were using noncontrast CT scans of the chest for metastatic work-up. The CT scans were used to measure the volume of contralateral normal breast. The volume estimates were used to specify the proper implant size for cosmesis. The estimated CT volume was correlated with volume estimates obtained using water displacement, as well as anthropometric measurements performed by a plastic surgeon.

RESULTS

Breast volume estimates obtained from CT scans were highly correlated with volumes measured by the two nonradiological methods, yielding a positive linear correlation coefficient (r = 0.99).

CONCLUSION

Volume measurement of the intact breast should be added to reports of routine chest CT studies in patients who undergo mastectomy. CT imaging is a feasible method for contralateral normal breast volume measurement in these patients.

A prospective study of breast dynamic morphological changes after dual-plane augmentation mammaplasty with 3D scanning technique

Background

The dual-plane technique has been widely used in augmentation mammaplasty procedures. However, there are some concerns about aesthetic contour maintenance for long time after muscle releasing. This study aims to track and analyze breast dynamic morphological changes after dual-plane breast augmentation with three-dimensional (3D) scanning technique.

Methods

Thirteen dual-plane anatomic implant augmentation patients underwent 3D scanning preoperatively (pre-OP) and postoperatively in four time points (1 month: post-1M, 3 months: post-3M, 6 months: post-6M and 12 months: post-12M). The linear distance, breast projection, nipple position, breast volume and breast surface area were measured and analyzed on the 3D models over time.

Results

Compared with post-12M, no significant differences were found in distances of nipple to midline, nipple to inframammary fold and sternal notch to the level of inframammary fold after 6 months in both straight-line distance and its projection on surface. The distances between sternal notch and nipple had no significant difference after post-1M. Breast volume changes had no significant difference after post-3M. The volume and area percentage of upper pole decreased while the lower pole’s increased gradually. The surface showed no significant changes after post-1M. The changes of breast projection had no significance after post-1M either. The nipple moved 1.0±0.6 cm laterally(X axis), 0.6±0.7 cm upward(Y axis) and 2.3±1.1 cm anteriorly (Z axis) at post-12M, and the differences were not significant after post-1M.

Conclusions

3D scanning technique provides an objective and effective way to evaluate breast morphological changes after augmentation mammaplasty over time. Dual-plane augmentation optimizes breast shape especially in the lower pole and maintains stable aesthetic outcome during the 12 months follow-up. Most of the contour changes and the interadaptation with the implant have completed 6 months after operation. Therefore, 6 months could be chosen as a relatively stable observing period in the assessment of postoperative outcomes of dual-plane breast augmentation.