Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Morphological Aesthetics Assessment of the Predicted 3D Simulation Results and the Actual Results of Breast Augmentation

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

Abstract

Background

Although three-dimensional (3D) simulations are becoming more common in preoperative breast augmentation planning, this does not necessarily imply that the simulated results are highly accurate.

Objectives

We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the 3D simulation technique by comparing the differences in breast morphology between the 3D prediction model and the actual results.

Methods

The simulation and actual postoperative results of 103 patients who underwent breast augmentation were analyzed retrospectively. Therefore, a 3D model was created, and the parameters of line spacing, nipple position, breast projection, surface area, and volume were evaluated. Furthermore, consider the difference in chest circumferences and breast volume.

Results

In comparison with the simulation results, the actual results had a mean increase in the nipple to the inframammary fold (N-IMF) of 0.3 cm (P < 0.05) and a mean increase in basal breast width (BW) of 0.3 cm (P < 0.001), a difference that was not statistically significant in patients with larger breast volumes. There was a significant difference in the mean upper and lower breast volume distribution between simulated and actual breasts (upper pole 52.9% vs. 49.2%, P < 0.05, and lower pole 47.1% vs. 50.8%, P < 0.001). However, it was not statistically significant in patients with larger chest circumferences.

Conclusions

Our study shows that 3D simulation has uncertainties related to the patient’s chest circumference and breast volume. Therefore, these two critical factors must be considered when using simulation assessment in preoperative planning.

Level of Evidence III

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
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

References

  1. Isogai N, Sai K, Kamiishi H, Watatani M, Inui H, Shiozaki H (2006) Quantitative analysis of the reconstructed breast using a 3-dimensional laser light scanner. Ann Plast Surg 56(3):237–242. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sap.0000200716.82945.b2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Onesti MG, Mezzana P, Martano A, Scuderi N (2004) Breast asymmetry: a new vision of this malformation. Acta Chir Plast 46(1):8–11

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chavoin JP, Teysseyre A, Grolleau JL (2005) “Morphobreast”: patient’s data bank management for objective selection of implant’s volume in hypotrophic breasts. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 50(5):487–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anplas.2005.08.020

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Westreich M (1997) Anthropomorphic breast measurement: protocol and results in 50 women with aesthetically perfect breasts and clinical application. Plast Reconstr Surg 100(2):468–479. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199708000-00032

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bouman FG (1970) Volumetric measurement of the human breast and breast tissue before and during mammaplasty. Br J Plast Surg 23(3):263–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0007-1226(70)80053-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Grossman AJ, Roudner LA (1980) A simple means for accurate breast volume determination. Plast Reconstr Surg 66(6):851–852. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-198012000-00009

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brody GS (1981) Breast implant size selection and patient satisfaction. Plast Reconstr Surg 68(4):611–613. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-198110000-00024

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Losken A, Seify H, Denson DD, Paredes AA Jr, Carlson GW (2005) Validating three-dimensional imaging of the breast. Ann Plast Surg 54(5):471–476. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sap.0000155278.87790.a1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kovacs L, Eder M, Hollweck R et al (2006) New aspects of breast volume measurement using 3-dimensional surface imaging. Ann Plast Surg 57(6):602–610. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sap.0000235455.21775.6a

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kovacs L, Yassouridis A, Zimmermann A et al (2006) Optimization of 3-dimensional imaging of the breast region with 3-dimensional laser scanners. Ann Plast Surg 56(3):229–236. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sap.0000197774.80832.24

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chang JB, Small KH, Choi M, Karp NS (2015) Three-dimensional surface imaging in plastic surgery: foundation, practical applications, and beyond. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(5):1295–1304. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000001221

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Weissler JM, Stern CS, Schreiber JE, Amirlak B, Tepper OM (2017) The evolution of photography and three-dimensional imaging in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 139(3):761–769. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000003146

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Donfrancesco A, Montemurro P, Hedén 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(4):810–822. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a014cb

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hong WJ, Wang HB, Lin FC et al (2021) Internal mastopexy: a novel method of filling the upper poles during dual-plane breast augmentation trough periareolar incision. Aesthet Plast Surg 45(4):1469–1475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-02098-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. La Padula S, Pensato R, D’Andrea F et al (2022) Assessment of patient satisfaction using a new augmented reality simulation software for breast augmentation: a prospective study. J Clin Med 11(12):3464. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123464

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Tebbetts JB (2002) A system for breast implant selection based on patient tissue characteristics and implant-soft tissue dynamics. Plast Reconstr Surg 109(4):1396–1409. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200204010-00030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Liu C, Luan J, Ji K, Sun J (2012) Measuring volumetric change after augmentation mammaplasty using a three-dimensional scanning technique: an innovative method. Aesthet Plast Surg 36(5):1134–1139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-012-9944-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ji K, Luan J, Liu C et al (2014) A prospective study of breast dynamic morphological changes after dual-plane augmentation mammaplasty with 3D scanning technique. PLoS ONE 9(3):e93010. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093010

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Hidalgo DA, Spector JA (2010) Preoperative sizing in breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 125(6):1781–1787. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181cb6530

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Adams WP Jr (2008) The process of breast augmentation: four sequential steps for optimizing outcomes for patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 122(6):1892–1900. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31818d20ec

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Catherwood T, McCaughan E, Greer E, Spence RA, McIntosh SA, Winder RJ (2011) Validation of a passive stereophotogrammetry system for imaging of the breast: a geometric analysis. Med Eng Phys 33(8):900–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2011.02.005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Swanson E (2015) The limitations of three-dimensional simulations in breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 35(3):NP62–NP64. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sju030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Steen K, Isaac KV, Murphy BD, Beber B, Brown M (2018) Three-dimensional imaging and breast measurements: how predictable are we? Aesthet Surg J 38(6):616–622. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tebbetts JB (2001) Dual plane breast augmentation: optimizing implant-soft-tissue relationships in a wide range of breast types. Plast Reconstr Surg 107(5):1255–1272. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318269b129

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Chae MP, Rozen WM, Spychal RT, Hunter-Smith DJ (2016) Breast volumetric analysis for aesthetic planning in breast reconstruction: a literature review of techniques. Gland Surg 5(2):212–226. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2227-684X.2015.10.03

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Losken A, Fishman I, Denson DD, Moyer HR, Carlson GW (2005) An objective evaluation of breast symmetry and shape differences using 3-dimensional images. Ann Plast Surg 55(6):571–575. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sap.0000185459.49434.5f

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Roostaeian J, Adams WP Jr (2014) Three-dimensional imaging for breast augmentation: is this technology providing accurate simulations? Aesthet Surg J 34(6):857–875. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090820x14538805

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Vegas MR, Martin del Yerro JL (2013) Stiffness, compliance, resilience, and creep deformation: understanding implant-soft tissue dynamics in the augmented breast: fundamentals based on materials science. Aesthet Plast Surg. 37(5):922–930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-013-0197-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Handel N (2006) Secondary mastopexy in the augmented patient: a recipe for disaster. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(7 Suppl):152S-163S. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000246106.85435.74

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tebbetts JB, Teitelbaum S (2010) High-and extra-high-projection breast implants: potential consequences for patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 126(6):2150–2159. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181f44564

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Eder M, Waldenfels FV, Sichtermann M et al (2011) Three-dimensional evaluation of breast contour and volume changes following subpectoral augmentation mammaplasty over 6 months. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 64(9):1152–1160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2011.03.037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Benito-Ruiz J, de Cabo F, Manzano M, Salvador L (2019) Effects of silicone implants on the mammary gland: ultrasonographic and 3D study. Aesthet Plast Surg 43(2):354–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1253-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. McGhee DE, Ramsay LG, Coltman CE, Gho SA, Steele JR (2018) Bra band size measurements derived from three-dimensional scans are not accurate in women with large, ptotic breasts. Ergonomics 61(3):464–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2017.1349936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Wang C, Liu C, Giatsidis G et al (2019) The effect of respiration on breast measurement using three-dimensional breast imaging. Aesthet Plast Surg 43(1):53–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1231-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Wang C, Liu C, Cheng H, Chen L, Endo Y, Luan J (2021) The effect of arm position on breast volume measurement using three-dimensional imaging. Aesthet Plast Surg 45(5):2009–2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-02113-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sun J, Mu D, Liu C et al (2019) The comparison of scars in breast implantation surgery with inframammary fold incision versus axillary incision: a prospective cohort study in Chinese patients. Aesthet Plast Surg 43(2):328–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1299-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this article.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Ling-Cong Zhou and Wei-Jin Hong contributed equally to the work and were considered to be co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Affiliated Guangdong Second Provincial General Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

    Ling-cong Zhou

  2. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Guangdong Second Provincial General Hospital, 466 Middle Xin Gang Road, Guangzhou, 510317, Guangdong, China

    Wei-Jin Hong, Mi-bu Cao, Li Zeng, Tong Peng, Xin-rui Li, Guo-sheng Zhu & Sheng-kang Luo

Authors
  1. Ling-cong Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wei-Jin Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mi-bu Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Li Zeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tong Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xin-rui Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Guo-sheng Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sheng-kang Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sheng-kang Luo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.

Consent to Participate

This study was approved (or granted exemption) by the Ethics Committee of Guangdong Second Provincial General Hospital (approval no. 2021-SB-261). We certify that the study was performed in accordance with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and later amendments.

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

Zhou, Lc., Hong, WJ., Cao, Mb. et al. Morphological Aesthetics Assessment of the Predicted 3D Simulation Results and the Actual Results of Breast Augmentation. Aesth Plast Surg 48, 568–579 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03597-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03597-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation