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

Lin, Fu-Chuan; Hong, Wei‐Jin; Zeng, Li; Kong, Xiangxue; Feng, Wenjie; Luo, Sheng-Kang

doi:10.1007/s00266-020-01665-7

Cited by 16 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There was a proportion of volume loss after the placement of implant, which was not significantly different between the 2 groups. Lin et al 11 reported a 10.9% volume loss after anatomic prosthesis implantation, which is close to the results we obtained. In a study by Kovacs et al, 7 however, a different result showed that the postoperative BV was larger than expected, indicating that no volume loss has occurred.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Breast Morphological Comparison Between Anatomic and Round Implant Augmentation

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…For the volume loss, it has a positive correlation with the implant volume; that is, the larger the implant used, the higher the volume loss. Regarding the correlation with the preoperative volume mentioned by Lin et al, 11 it was not found in our study.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 87%

Breast Morphological Comparison Between Anatomic and Round Implant Augmentation

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Much of the work published to date has involved VECTRA XT (Canfield Sci, New Jersey, USA), a non-mobile system of six cameras which integrates the images into a 3D picture (figure 1). This can be measured [12][13][14] and adjusted to simulate future appearance 15 using the associated Mirror software (Canfield Sci, New Jersey, USA) and has been validated in breast cancer patients 16 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Now, patients or their surgeons can upload three 2D photographs and the image is configured by the Crisalix web portal to create a 3D image, however, the infrared method is still recommended by Crisalix for greater accuracy. Validation studies are necessary in order for 3D-SI measurements to become commonplace in everyday clinical practice 13 . To date, however, there are no studies comparing the validity, accuracy and reproducibility of the Crisalix imaging system with other more established 3D-SI systems 18 .…”

Section: Crisalixmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of volume and anthropometric breast measurements using the Crisalix and VECTRA XT 3-dimensional surface imaging systems in women who have undergone breast-conserving surgery

Leusink¹,

O’Connell²,

Dean

et al. 2021

MRAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Three-dimensional surface imaging (3D-SI) of the breasts enables the measurement of anthropometric distances and breast volume. These measurements may be used in surgical planning and to facilitate clear communication with patients. The aim of this study was to compare measurements using a portable 3D-SI system, Crisalix, with a more established non-mobile camera, the VECTRA XT. Methods Participants were imaged three times using the Crisalix and the VECTRA XT system. Breast volume, sternal notch to nipple distance, nipple to nipple distance and breast width were measured. Intra-observer agreement was measured using the co-efficient of variation (CV). Agreement between the two methods was represented with Bland Altman agreement plots. Results Intra-method variation was low for both methods (maximum CV 3.3% for Crisalix and 3.2% for VECTRA XT), with only nipple-to-nipple distance being statistically significant, marginally in favour of VECTRA. The mean inter-method differences were small but the limits of agreement (LoA) were wide for all parameters: best for sternal notch to nipple distance, mean difference (MD) -0.03cm and LoA 1.8 to -1.8cm; the widest LoA were for breast volume: MD 31.1cm3 and LoA 286.7 to -244.6cm3. Conclusion This is the first comparison of anthropometric distances and breast volume measured using the two most widely used 3D-SI systems, Crisalix and VECTRA XT. Intra-method variation is low but currently it would not be appropriate to use the two systems interchangeably due to the wide limits of agreement for all four parameters assessed.

show abstract

“…Methods include simple tape measure-based systems such as described here, [4][5][6][7] measurements taken from standardized photographic images [8][9][10][11] and 3-dimensional scanning systems. [12][13][14][15][16] Although it has been suggested that direct measurements lead to considerable interobserver and intraobserver error, this is not the case. 1 However, each surgeon should go through a process of assessing their own team's measurement variability prior to on embarking on their chosen system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ten Measurements That Can Reduce Anxiety in Physicians and Their Patients Undergoing Breast Augmentation Surgery

Brown¹,

Murphy²

2021

Am J Cosmet Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are numerous measuring systems that practitioners employ as part of their presurgical assessment for breast implant surgery. These range from direct measurements of patients using a tape measure, to assessment of standardized photographs and 3-dimensional scanning technologies. This personal view describes the authors system, developed over 20 years. The data yielded have assisted in assessing breast symmetry, ptosis, and match of implant to patient, with proven benefits for managing patient outcomes and expectations. It is simple, rapid to undertake, and requires inexpensive measuring equipment to provide useful data.

show abstract

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

Cited by 16 publications

References 38 publications

Breast Morphological Comparison Between Anatomic and Round Implant Augmentation

Breast Morphological Comparison Between Anatomic and Round Implant Augmentation

A comparison of volume and anthropometric breast measurements using the Crisalix and VECTRA XT 3-dimensional surface imaging systems in women who have undergone breast-conserving surgery

Ten Measurements That Can Reduce Anxiety in Physicians and Their Patients Undergoing Breast Augmentation Surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About