scholarly journals A Prospective Investigation of Predictive Parameters for Preoperative Volume Assessment in Breast Reconstruction

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (22) ◽  
pp. 5216
Author(s):  
Nicola Zingaretti ◽  
Giovanni Miotti ◽  
Carlo Alberto Maronese ◽  
Miriam Isola ◽  
Gianni Franco Guarneri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Strong Correlation ◽  
Breast Implant ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Volume Estimation ◽  
Breast Volume ◽  
Volume Determination ◽  
Areola Complex ◽  
Mastectomy Specimen ◽  
Volume Assessment

Preoperative breast volume estimation is very important for the success of the breast surgery. In this study four different breast volume determination methods were compared. The end-point of this prospective study was to evaluate the concordance between different modalities of breast volume assessment (MRI, BREAST-V, mastectomy specimen weight, conversion from weight to volume of mastectomy specimen) and the breast prosthetic volume implanted. The study enrolled 64 patients between 2017 and 2019, who had all been treated by the same surgeons for monolateral nipple–areola complex-sparing mastectomy and implant breast reconstruction. Only patients who had a breast reconstruction classified as “excellent” from an objective (BCCT.core software) and subjective (questionnaire) point of view at the 6-month interval after the operation were included in the study. Data analysis highlighted a strong correlation between the volumes of the chosen prostheses and the weights of mastectomy converted into volume, especially for patients with grades B and C parenchymal density. The values of the agreement between the volumes of the chosen prostheses and the assessments from MRI and BREAST -V proved to be lower than expected from the literature. None of the four studied methods presented any strong correlation with the initial breast width. Our results suggest that conversion from weight to volume of mastectomy specimen should be used to assist in determining the volume of the breast implant to be implanted. This method would help the reconstructive surgeon guide the choice of the most appropriate implant preoperatively.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus 3-Dimensional Laser Scanning for Breast Volume Assessment After Breast Reconstruction

2017 ◽  
Vol 78 (4) ◽  
pp. 455-459 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin H.L. Howes ◽  
David I. Watson ◽  
Beverley Fosh ◽  
Jia Miin Yip ◽  
Pakan Kleinig ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Laser Scanning ◽  
Breast Volume ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
3 Dimensional ◽  
Volume Assessment

scholarly journals Prediction of the Ideal Implant Size Using 3-Dimensional Healthy Breast Volume in Unilateral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction

Medicina ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (10) ◽  
pp. 498
Author(s):  
Jeong-Hoon Kim ◽  
Jin-Woo Park ◽  
Kyong-Je Woo
Keyword(s):  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Prediction Performance ◽  
Surface Imaging ◽  
Breast Volume ◽  
Specimen Weight ◽  
Mastectomy Specimen ◽  
Implant Size ◽  
3D Surface Imaging ◽  
3D Volume ◽  
The Ideal

Background and objectives: There is no consensus regarding accurate methods for assessing the size of the implant required for achieving symmetry in direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the ideal implant size could be estimated using 3D breast volume or mastectomy specimen weight, and to compare prediction performances between the two variables. Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent immediate DTI breast reconstruction from August 2017 to April 2020 were included in this study. Breast volumes were measured using 3D surface imaging preoperatively and at postoperative three months. Ideal implant size was calculated by correcting the used implant volume by the observed postoperative asymmetry in 3D surface imaging. Prediction models using mastectomy weight or 3D volume were made to predict the ideal implant volume. The prediction performance was compared between the models. Results: A total of 56 patients were included in the analysis. In correlation analysis, the volume of the implant used was significantly correlated with the mastectomy specimen weight (R2 = 0.810) and the healthy breast volume (R2 = 0.880). The mean ideal implant volume was 278 ± 123 cc. The prediction model was developed using the healthy breast volume: Implant volume (cc) = healthy breast volume × 0.78 + 26 cc (R2 = 0.900). The prediction model for the ideal implant size using the 3D volume showed better prediction performance than that of using the mastectomy specimen weight (R2 = 0.900 vs 0.759, p < 0.001). Conclusions: The 3D volume of the healthy breast is a more reliable predictor than mastectomy specimen weight to estimate the ideal implant size. The estimation formula obtained in this study may assist in the selection of the ideal implant size in unilateral DTI breast reconstruction.

scholarly journals 3D Breast Volume Estimation

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Pedro F. Gouveia ◽  
Hélder P. Oliveira ◽  
João P. Monteiro ◽  
João F. Teixeira ◽  
Nuno L. Silva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Breast Mri ◽  
Volume Measurement ◽  
Volume Estimation ◽  
Breast Volume ◽  
Water Displacement ◽  
3D Surface ◽  
Mastectomy Specimen ◽  
Surface Scan

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Breast volume estimation is considered crucial for breast cancer surgery planning. A single, easy, and reproducible method to estimate breast volume is not available. This study aims to evaluate, in patients proposed for mastectomy, the accuracy of the calculation of breast volume from a low-cost 3D surface scan (Microsoft Kinect) compared to the breast MRI and water displacement technique. <b><i>Material and Methods:</i></b> Patients with a Tis/T1–T3 breast cancer proposed for mastectomy between July 2015 and March 2017 were assessed for inclusion in the study. Breast volume calculations were performed using a 3D surface scan and the breast MRI and water displacement technique. Agreement between volumes obtained with both methods was assessed with the Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Eighteen patients with invasive breast cancer were included in the study and submitted to mastectomy. The level of agreement of the 3D breast volume compared to surgical specimens and breast MRI volumes was evaluated. For mastectomy specimen volume, an average (standard deviation) of 0.823 (0.027) and 0.875 (0.026) was obtained for the Pearson and Spearman correlations, respectively. With respect to MRI annotation, we obtained 0.828 (0.038) and 0.715 (0.018). <b><i>Discussion:</i></b> Although values obtained by both methodologies still differ, the strong linear correlation coefficient suggests that 3D breast volume measurement using a low-cost surface scan device is feasible and can approximate both the MRI breast volume and mastectomy specimen with sufficient accuracy. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> 3D breast volume measurement using a depth-sensor low-cost surface scan device is feasible and can parallel MRI breast and mastectomy specimen volumes with enough accuracy. Differences between methods need further development to reach clinical applicability. A possible approach could be the fusion of breast MRI and the 3D surface scan to harmonize anatomic limits and improve volume delimitation.

scholarly journals Simultaneous Mastopexy Explantation With a Vertical Bipedicle and Novel Open Pattern Marking Technique

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elliot M Hirsch
Keyword(s):  
Plastic Surgery ◽  
Breast Implant ◽  
Implant Removal ◽  
Consecutive Series ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Areola Complex ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Safe Technique ◽  
Marking Technique ◽  
Technical Considerations

Abstract There are limited studies in the plastic surgery literature that detail technical considerations in simultaneous breast implant removal and mastopexy procedures. These procedures are difficult, with significant potential for complications and poor cosmesis. The current plastic surgery literature describes a limited number of techniques that address these concerns, virtually all of which are variants of superior or superior medial pedicle vertical pattern mastopexy. This paper details a safe technique for simultaneous explantation and mastopexy with a novel open marking pattern and vertical bipedicle, which can restore breast cosmesis following implant removal. The study will briefly retrospectively review the results of a consecutive series of 86 patients who underwent this procedure from November 2018 to November 2019, with no incidence of partial or total nipple-areola complex necrosis. Thus, the technique is safe and allows the flexibility for intraoperative adjustments that are necessary for these procedures. A future study will conduct a more in-depth analysis of the results. Level of Evidence: 4

scholarly journals Contemporary issues and prospects of skin-sparing mastectomy performance in patients with breast cancer

2015 ◽  
Vol 96 (6) ◽  
pp. 1021-1027
Author(s):  
A Kh Ismagilov ◽  
A S Vanesyan ◽  
A R Khamitov
Keyword(s):  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Reconstruction Method ◽  
Biometric Data ◽  
Minimal Impact ◽  
Areola Complex ◽  
Aesthetic Results ◽  
Disease Free Survival Rate ◽  
The One ◽  
Breast Reconstructive Surgery

For breast reconstructive surgery oncological requirements are imposed, which include the principle of radicality, ablastics, antiblastics and minimal impact on the general and disease-free survival rate, as well as aesthetical requirements - excised breast volume replacement, recovery of tactile sensitivity and shape most closely resembling the natural one. The mastectomy technique determines the breast reconstruction aesthetic results. In 1991 skin-sparing mastectomy combined with the one-stage breast reconstruction, which allows to preserve the organ skin, was described by B.A. Toth and P. Lappert. In 1997, G. Carlson proposed the classification of incisions for skin-sparing mastectomy, which considers both aesthetic and oncological aspects of the surgery, thereby it is successfully used to the present day. In 2003, R.M. Simmons published his incision classification in skin-sparing mastectomy, which differs from the G. Carlson classification only by type III incision. Determinant factors for skin-sparing mastectomy type choice are the presence of scars from previous biopsies, tumor topographic and anatomical parameters and planned reconstruction method. Selection of the appropriate incision type for skin-sparing mastectomy depends on the location and the tumor invasion depth in the breast tissue, the distance of the tumor from the nipple-areola complex and aesthetically favorable zones, as well as biometric data (the areola diameter, breast hypertrophy and ptosis) and the patient desires. Thus skin-sparing mastectomy is aimed to the closest possible to the preoperative level result achievement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document