Abstract
Background
Breast augmentation is among the most frequently performed cosmetic plastic surgeries. Providing patients with “realistic” 3D simulations of breast augmentation outcomes is becoming increasingly common. Until recently, such programs were costly and required significant equipment, training, and office space. New simple user-friendly cloud-based programs have been developed, but to date there remains a paucity of objective evidence comparing these 3D simulations with the post-operative outcomes.
Objectives
To determine the aesthetic similarity between pre-operative 3D simulation generated by Crisalix and real post-operative outcomes.
Methods
A retrospective review of 20 patients receiving bilateral breast augmentation was conducted comparing 6-month post-operative outcomes with 3D simulation using Crisalix software. Similarities between post-operative and simulated images were measured by three attending plastic surgeons and ten plastic surgery residents using a series of parameters.
Results
Assessment reveals similarity between the 3D simulation and 6-month post-operative images for overall appearance, breast height, breast width, breast volume, breast projection, and nipple correction. Crisalix software generated more representative simulations for symmetric breasts than for tuberous or ptotic breasts. Comparison of overall aesthetic outcome to simulation showed that the post-operative outcome was more appealing for the symmetric and tuberous breasts and less appealing for the ptotic breasts.
Conclusions
Our data suggest that Crisalix offers a good overall 3D simulated image of post-operative breast augmentation outcomes. Improvements to the simulation of the post-operative outcomes for ptotic and tuberous breasts would result in greater predictive capabilities of Crisalix. Collectively, Crisalix offers good predictive simulations for symmetric breasts.
Level of Evidence IV
This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors http://www.springer.com/00266.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hidalgo DA, Spector JA (2014) Breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 133:567e–583e
Tebbetts JB, Adams WP (2005) Five critical decisions in breast augmentation using five measurements in 5 min: the high five decision support process. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:2005–2016
Choudry U, Kim N (2012) Preoperative assessment preferences and reported reoperation rates for size change in primary breast augmentation: a survey of ASPS members. Plast Reconstr Surg 130:1352–1359
Hidalgo DA, Spector JA (2010) Preoperative sizing in breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 125:1781–1787
Donfrancesco A, Montemurro P, Heden P (2013) Three-dimensional simulated images in breast augmentation surgery: an investigation of patients’ satisfaction and the correlation between prediction and actual outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:810–822
Hammond DC (2013) Discussion: three-dimensional simulated images in breast augmentation surgery: an investigation of patients’ satisfaction and the correlation between prediction and actual outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:823–825
Tzou CH, Artner NM, Pona I, Hold A, Placheta E, Kropatsch WG, Frey M (2014) Comparison of three-dimensional surface-imaging systems. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 67:489–497
de Heras Ciechomski P, Constantinescu M, Garcia J, Olariu R, Dindoyal I, Le Huu S, Reyes M (2012) Development and implementation of a web-enabled 3D consultation tool for breast augmentation surgery based on 3D-image reconstruction of 2D pictures. J Med Internet Res 14:e21
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vorstenbosch, J., Islur, A. Correlation of Prediction and Actual Outcome of Three-Dimensional Simulation in Breast Augmentation Using a Cloud-Based Program. Aesth Plast Surg 41, 481–490 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-017-0830-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-017-0830-2