Archives of Plastic Surgery

Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한성형외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Three-Dimensional Surface Imaging is an Effective Tool for Measuring Breast Volume: A Validation Study

  • Lee, Woo Yeon (Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Min Jung (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lew, Dae Hyun (Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Song, Seung Yong (Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Dong Won (Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2016.03.28
  • Accepted : 2016.08.31
  • Published : 2016.09.21
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background Accurate breast volume assessment is a prerequisite to preoperative planning, as well as intraoperative decision making in breast reconstruction surgery. The use of three-dimensional surface imaging (3D scanning) to assess breast volume has many advantages. However, before employing 3D scanning in the field, the tool's validity should be demonstrated. The purpose of this study was to confirm the validity of 3D-scanning technology for evaluating breast volume. Methods We reviewed the charts of 25 patients who underwent breast reconstruction surgery immediately after total mastectomy. Breast volumes using the Axis Three 3D scanner, water-displacement technique, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were obtained bilaterally in the preoperative period. During the operation, the tissue removed during total mastectomy was weighed and the specimen volume was calculated from the weight. Then, we compared the volume obtained from 3D scanning with those obtained using the water-displacement technique, MRI, and the calculated volume of the tissue removed. Results The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of breast volumes obtained from 3D scanning, as compared to the volumes obtained using the water-displacement technique and specimen weight, demonstrated excellent reliability. The ICC of breast volumes obtained using 3D scanning, as compared to those obtained by MRI, demonstrated substantial reliability. Passing-Bablok regression showed agreement between 3D scanning and the water-displacement technique, and showed a linear association of 3D scanning with MRI and specimen volume, respectively. Conclusions When compared with the classical water-displacement technique and MRI-based volumetry, 3D scanning showed significant reliability and a linear association with the other two methods.

Keywords

References

  1. Yip JM, Mouratova N, Jeffery RM, et al. Accurate assessment of breast volume: a study comparing the volumetric gold standard (direct water displacement measurement of mastectomy specimen) with a 3D laser scanning technique. Ann Plast Surg 2012;68:135-41. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e31820ebdd0
  2. Campaigne BN, Katch VL, Freedson P, et al. Measurement of breast volume in females: description of a reliable method. Ann Hum Biol 1979;6:363-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014467900003741
  3. Edsander-Nord A, Wickman M, Jurell G. Measurement of breast volume with thermoplastic casts. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 1996;30:129-32. https://doi.org/10.3109/02844319609056394
  4. Schultz RC, Dolezal RF, Nolan J. Further applications of Archimedes' principle in the correction of asymmetrical breasts. Ann Plast Surg 1986;16:98-101. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-198602000-00003
  5. Bouman FG. Volumetric measurement of the human breast and breast tissue before and during mammaplasty. Br J Plast Surg 1970;23:263-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-1226(70)80053-4
  6. Wilmore JH, Atwater AE, Maxwell BD, et al. Alterations in breast morphology consequent to a 21-day bust developer program. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1985;17:106-12.
  7. Smith DJ Jr, Palin WE Jr, Katch VL, et al. Breast volume and anthropomorphic measurements: normal values. Plast Reconstr Surg 1986;78:331-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-198609000-00008
  8. Westreich M. Anthropomorphic breast measurement: protocol and results in 50 women with aesthetically perfect breasts and clinical application. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997;100:468-79. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199708000-00032
  9. Rha EY, Choi IK, Yoo G. Accuracy of the method for estimating breast volume on three-dimensional simulated magnetic resonance imaging scans in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014;133:14-20.
  10. Neal AJ, Torr M, Helyer S, et al. Correlation of breast dose heterogeneity with breast size using 3D CT planning and dose-volume histograms. Radiother Oncol 1995;34:210-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8140(95)01521-H
  11. Kalbhen CL, McGill JJ, Fendley PM, et al. Mammographic determination of breast volume: comparing different methods. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:1643-9. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.173.6.10584814
  12. Malini S, Smith EO, Goldzieher JW. Measurement of breast volume by ultrasound during normal menstrual cycles and with oral contraceptive use. Obstet Gynecol 1985;66:538-41.
  13. Parmar C, West M, Pathak S, et al. Weight versus volume in breast surgery: an observational study. JRSM Short Rep 2011;2:87.
  14. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
  15. Bland JM, Altman DG. Correlation, regression, and repeated data. BMJ 1994;308:896. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.308.6933.896
  16. Passing H, Bablok. A new biometrical procedure for testing the equality of measurements from two different analytical methods. Application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in clinical chemistry, Part I. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1983;21:709-20.
  17. Bulstrode N, Bellamy E, Shrotria S. Breast volume assessment: comparing five different techniques. Breast 2001;10:117-23. https://doi.org/10.1054/brst.2000.0196
  18. Herold C, Ueberreiter K, Cromme F, et al. The use of mamma MRI volumetry to evaluate the rate of fat survival after autologous lipotransfer. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 2010;42:129-34. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1243204
  19. Eder M, Kovacs L. Commentary on the article of Herold et al.: The use of mamma MRI volumetry to evaluate the rates of fat survival after autologous lipotransfer. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 2010;42:135-6. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1249616
  20. Mineyev M, Kramer D, Kaufman L, et al. Measurement of breast implant volume with magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Plast Surg 1995;34:348-51. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-199504000-00002
  21. Keys KA, Louie O, Said HK, et al. Clinical utility of CT angiography in DIEP breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2013;66:e61-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2012.09.025
  22. Ohkuma R, Mohan R, Baltodano PA, et al. Abdominally based free flap planning in breast reconstruction with computed tomographic angiography: systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014;133:483-94. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000438058.44505.d8
  23. Teunis T, Heerma van Voss MR, Kon M, et al. CT-angiography prior to DIEP flap breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Microsurgery 2013;33:496-502. https://doi.org/10.1002/micr.22119
  24. Lee KT, Mun GH. Volumetric planning using computed tomographic angiography improves clinical outcomes in DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016;137:771e-780e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000002045
  25. Kovacs L, Eder M, Hollweck R, et al. Comparison between breast volume measurement using 3D surface imaging and classical techniques. Breast 2007;16:137-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2006.08.001
  26. Losken A, Seify H, Denson DD, et al. Validating three-dimensional imaging of the breast. Ann Plast Surg 2005;54:471-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sap.0000155278.87790.a1

Cited by

  1. Stem cell divisions, somatic mutations, cancer etiology, and cancer prevention vol.355, pp.6331, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf9011
  2. Selection of Implants in Unilateral Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction and Contralateral Augmentation vol.44, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2017.44.5.413
  3. Breast cancer research and treatment reconstruction of unilateral breast structure using three-dimensional ultrasound imaging to assess breast neoplasm vol.176, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05202-2
  4. Expanding the use of internal mammary artery perforators as a recipient vessel in free tissue transfer: An anatomical analysis by computed tomography angiography in breast cancer patients vol.39, pp.6, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1002/micr.30446
  5. Hypofractionated Radiotherapy With Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Decreases Postoperative Complications in Prosthetic Breast Reconstructions: A Clinicopathologic Study vol.10, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.577136
  6. Wavelia Breast Imaging: The Optical Breast Contour Detection Subsystem vol.10, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10041234
  7. Retrospective review of 108 breast reconstructions using the round block technique after breast-conserving surgery: Indications, complications, and outcomes vol.47, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2020.00325
  8. Measuring Differential Volume Using the Subtraction Tool for Three-Dimensional Breast Volumetry: A Proof of Concept Study vol.27, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350620945563
  9. Risk and protective factors affecting sensory recovery after breast reconstruction vol.48, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2020.01151
  10. Sustained Breast Development and Breast Anthropometric Changes in 3 Years of Gender-Affirming Hormone Treatment vol.106, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgaa841
  11. Robotic harvest of a latissimus dorsi flap using a single-port surgical robotic system in breast reconstruction vol.48, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2021.00710