Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of Three Breast Volume Measurement Techniques: Single Marking, MRI and Crisalix 3D Software®

  • Original Article
  • Breast Surgery
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Measuring breast volume is important to obtain satisfactory breast surgery results, and many techniques are used for this purpose. Thus, the aim of the present study was to compare 3 breast volume techniques: Pessoa’s single marking technique, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and Crisalix 3D software®.

Methods

Fourteen patients indicated for mammoplasty were selected. Three breast volume measurement techniques were compared: Pessoa’s single marking technique, MRI and Crisalix 3D software®. The volumes were tabulated and analyzed using R software.

Results

Average age was 30.93 ± 10.25 years. The breast volume was 1554.54 ± 512.54 cm3, as measured by the MRI technique (considered the gold standard), 1199.64 ± 403.13 cm3 using Crisalix 3D software® and 1518.04 ± 468.72 cm3 by Pessoa’s single marking technique. Comparison between the Crisalix 3D software® and MRI techniques using the pairwise t test demonstrated a statistically significant difference (t = 4.3957, df = 27, p value = 0001543), but no significant difference between the single marking and MRI techniques (t = 1.3841, df = 27, p value = 0.1777).

Conclusion

When compared to MRI, breast volume measurement using Pessoa’s single marking technique showed no statistically significant difference between them. However, the Crisalix 3D® technique exhibited a difference in relation to MRI. Anthropometric measurements are useful in measuring breast volume because they are easy to obtain, practical and inexpensive, and should be part of a plastic surgeon’s arsenal.

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 www.springer.com/00266.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schartzman E (1930) Die technik der mammaplastik. Chirurg 2:932

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ariê G (1957) Nova técnica em mamoplastia. Rev Latinoam Cir Plast 3:22–28

    Google Scholar 

  3. Strombeck JO (1968) Reduction mammaplasty. In: Grabb WC, Smith JW (eds) Plastic surgery. Little, Brown and Co, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pitanguy I (1966) Hipertrofias mamárias: estudo crítico da técnica pessoal. Rev Bras Cir 56:263

    Google Scholar 

  5. Skoog T (1974) Plastic surgery: new methods and refinements. Saunders, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  6. Pessoa SGP, Dias IS, Pessoa LMGP (2009) Mastoplastia com marcação única: uma abordagem pessoal. Rev Bras Cir Plást 24(4):509–520

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kovacs L et al (2007) Comparison between breast volume measurement using 3D surface imaging and classical techniques. Breast 16(2):137–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cbulstrode N, Bellamy E, Shrotria S (2001) Breast volume assessment: comparing five different techniques. Breast 10(2):117–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tzou C-HJ et al (2014) Comparison of three-dimensional surface-imaging systems. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 67(4):489–497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lejour M (1994) Vertical mammaplasty and liposuction of the breast. Plast Reconstr Surg 94(1):100–114

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Killaars RC et al (2020) Clinical assessment of breast volume: can 3D imaging be the gold standard? Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open 8(11):e3236.  https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000003236

  12. Eriksen C et al (2011) Evaluation of volume and shape of breasts: comparison between traditional and three-dimensional techniques. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 45(1):14–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Göpper MW et al (2020) Improved accuracy of breast volume calculation from 3D surface imaging data using statistical shape models. PLoS ONE 15(11):e0233586

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Itsukage S et al (2017) Breast volume measurement by recycling the data obtained from 2 routine modalities, mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Eplasty 17:e39

  15. Kim H et al (2015) Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging-based breast volumetry for immediate breast reconstruction. Aesthet Plast Surg 39(3):369–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Yoo A, Minn KW, Jin US (2013) Magnetic resonance imaging-based volumetric analysis and its relationship to actual breast weight. Arch Plast Surg 40(3):203

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Kayar R et al (2011) Five methods of breast volume measurement: a comparative study of measurements of specimen volume in 30 mastectomy cases. Breast Cancer Basic Clin Res 5:BCRCR2-S6128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bulstrode N, Bellamy E, Shrotria S (2001) Breast volume assessment: comparing five different techniques. Breast 10(2):117–123

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kwong JW et al (2020) Assessing the accuracy of a 3-dimensional surface imaging system in breast volume estimation. Ann Plast Surg 84(5S):S311–S317

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Vorstenbosch J, Islur A (2017) Correlation of prediction and actual outcome of three-dimensional simulation in breast augmentation using a cloud-based program. Aesthet Plast Surg 41(3):481–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Yang J et al (2015) The three-dimensional techniques in the objective measurement of breast aesthetics. Aesthet Plast Surg 39(6):910–915

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Authors' own funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, UFC - Universidade Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil

    Aleksandra Markovic, Salustiano Gomes de Pinho Pessoa, José Alberto Dias Leite, Fernando Soares de Alcântara & Bernardo Gabriele Collaço

  2. Department of Health Sciences, UFERSA - Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-Árido, Rua Francisco Mota, 572, Pres. Costa e Silva, Mossoró, RN, 57259625-900, Brazil

    Diego Ariel de Lima

Authors
  1. Aleksandra Markovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Salustiano Gomes de Pinho Pessoa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. José Alberto Dias Leite
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fernando Soares de Alcântara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bernardo Gabriele Collaço
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Diego Ariel de Lima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diego Ariel de Lima.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose

Human and Animal Rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards

Informed Consent

All present participants gave their written informed consent prior to enrollment in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Markovic, A., Pessoa, S.G.P., Leite, J.A.D. et al. Assessment of Three Breast Volume Measurement Techniques: Single Marking, MRI and Crisalix 3D Software®. Aesth Plast Surg 47, 1751–1758 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03432-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03432-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation