Clinical assessment of breast symmetry and aesthetic outcome: can 3D imaging be the gold standard?

References

• Visser NJ, Damen THC, Timman R, et al. Surgical results, aesthetic outcome, and patient satisfaction after microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction following failed implant reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(1):26–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuroda F, Urban C, Zucca-Matthes G, et al. Evaluation of aesthetic and quality-of-life results after immediate breast reconstruction with definitive form-stable anatomical implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137(2):278e–286e.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henseler H, Smith J, Bowman A, et al. Subjective versus objective assessment of breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2013;66(5):634–639.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzal F, Krois W, Trischler H, et al. The use of a breast symmetry index for objective evaluation of breast cosmesis. Breast. 2007;16(4):429–435.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardoso MJ, Cardoso J, Amaral N, et al. Turning subjective into objective: the BCCT.core software for evaluation of cosmetic results in breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast. 2007;16(5):456–461.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardoso MJ, Cardoso JS, Oliveira HP, et al. The breast cancer conservative treatment. Cosmetic results – BCCT.core – software for objective assessment of esthetic outcome in breast cancer conservative treatment: a narrative review. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2016;126:154–159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang JB, Small KH, Choi M, et al. Three-dimensional surface imaging in plastic surgery: foundation, practical applications, and beyond. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(5):1295–1304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Killaars RC, Preuβ MLG, de Vos NJPD, et al. Clinical assessment of breast volume: can 3D imaging be the gold standard? Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020;8(11):1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Chapman BV, Lei X, Patil P, et al. Quantitative 3-dimensional photographic assessment of breast cosmesis after whole breast irradiation for early stage breast cancer: a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020;5(5):824–833.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eriksen C, Lindgren EN, Frisell J, et al. A prospective randomized study comparing two different expander approaches in implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(2):254–264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksen C, Lindgren EN, Olivecrona H, et al. Evaluation of volume and shape of breasts: comparison between traditional and three-dimensional techniques. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2011;45(1):14–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Connell RL, Khabra K, Bamber JC, et al. Validation of the Vectra XT three-dimensional imaging system for measuring breast volume and symmetry following oncological reconstruction. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;171(2):391–398.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Connell RL, Di Micco R, Khabra K, et al. The potential role of three-dimensional surface imaging as a tool to evaluate aesthetic outcome after breast conserving therapy (BCT). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;164(2):385–393.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bai L, Arver B, Johansson H, et al. Body image problems in women with and without breast cancer 6–20 years after bilateral risk-reducing surgery – a prospective follow-up study. Breast. 2019;44:120–127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Knol DL, et al. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(10):1033–1039.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartlett JW, Frost C. Reliability, repeatability and reproducibility: analysis of measurement errors in continuous variables. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31:466–475.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerke O, Vilstrup MH, Segtnan EA, et al. How to assess intra- and inter-observer agreement with quantitative PET using variance component analysis: a proposal for standardisation. BMC Med Imaging. 2016;16(1):1–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Landis J, Koch G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galdino GM, Nahabedian M, Chiaramonte M, et al. Clinical applications of three-dimensional photography in breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;110(1):58–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nahabedian MY, Galdino G. Symmetrical breast reconstruction: is there a role for three-dimensional digital photography? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112(6):1582–1590.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pöhlmann STL, Harkness E, Taylor CJ, et al. Preoperative implant selection for unilateral breast reconstruction using 3D imaging with the Microsoft Kinect sensor. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;70(8):1059–1067.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hameeteman M, Verhulst AC, Maal TJJ, et al. An analysis of pose in 3D stereophotogrammetry of the breast. Br J Plast Surg. 2016;69(12):1609–1613.
   Google Scholar
• Kovacs L, Eder M, Hollweck R, et al. Comparison between breast volume measurement using 3D surface imaging and classical techniques. Breast. 2007;16(2):137–145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wesselius TS, Verhulst AC, Vreeken RD, et al. Accuracy of three software applications for breast volume calculations from three-dimensional surface images. Breast. 2018;142(4):858–865.
   Google Scholar
• Yang J, Zhang R, Shen J, et al. The three-dimensional techniques in the objective measurement of breast aesthetics. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2015;39(6):910–915.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yip JM, Watson DI, Tiggemann M, et al. Determinants of breast reconstruction outcome: how important is volume symmetry? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015;68(5):679–685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chae MP, Hunter-Smith DJ, Spychal RT, et al. 3D volumetric analysis for planning breast reconstructive surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;146(2):457–460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gahm J, Edsander-Nord Å, Jurell G, et al. No differences in aesthetic outcome or patient satisfaction between anatomically shaped and round expandable implants in bilateral breast reconstructions: a randomized study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(5):1419–1427.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar