Three-dimensional imaging for breast augmentation: Is this technology providing accurate simulations?

64Citations
Citations of this article
54Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: For patients considering breast augmentation, 3-dimensional (3D) imaging provides a preoperative simulation of the postoperative result. However, the clinical accuracy of these simulations has not been assessed. Objective: The authors compared preoperative simulations with postoperative results of breast augmentation to permit more informed decisions about breast augmentation. Methods: To determine differences between simulations and actual results, volumetric and contour analyses were performed for patients who underwent 3D imaging both preoperatively and 3 months after breast augmentation. All patients received round smooth silicone implants or anatomically shaped cohesive silicone gel implants; the mean volume was 295 cc. Results: Twenty patients (40 breasts) underwent 3D imaging both pre- and postoperatively. There were no procedural complications or revisions. The mean difference between preoperative simulation and postoperative breast volume was 27.2 cc (range, 1.4-99.5 cc), representing a 9.2% mean difference in volume and an accuracy of 90.8%. The mean absolute difference (root mean square) of all surface points along the breast in aggregate was 4.0 mm (range, 1.8-8.3 mm). No specific location along the surface contour of the breast could be identified as having the greatest differences. Conclusions: The preoperative simulation provided by 3D imaging is >90% accurate in predicting postoperative breast volume. The mean absolute differential for surface contour in this study was 4 mm, representing 98.4% accuracy based on average surface area. © 2014 The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Inc.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Roostaeian, J., & Adams, W. P. (2014). Three-dimensional imaging for breast augmentation: Is this technology providing accurate simulations? Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 34(6), 857–875. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090820X14538805

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free