Abstract
Background
The goal of breast plastic surgery is to improve the shape of the breasts. The shape of the breast is determined by several parameters and proportions; however, the proportions that have the greatest impact on breast aesthetics have not been investigated. The purpose of this study is to determine which breast proportions are crucial to aesthetics and should be given priority when surgery is designed.
Methods
Breasts were divided into a high-satisfaction group and a low-satisfaction group according to an aesthetic evaluation that consisted of self-evaluations and evaluations by plastic surgeons. Three-dimensional scanning and measurement of the breasts were performed. The differences in breast parameters and proportions between the two groups were analyzed, and the ROC curve of each proportion was applied to determine which index had a significant influence on satisfaction and could predict satisfaction well.
Results
A total of 179 unilateral breasts were evaluated and measured; of these, 68 breasts were classified as high satisfaction, and 111 were classified as low satisfaction. There were no significant differences in breast width between the two groups. In the high-satisfaction group, the absolute value and the value divided by the breast width of breast projection and the lower pole length were significantly greater than those of the low-satisfaction group. The areas under the ROC for breast projection and lower pole length, as aesthetic predictive indexes, were greater than 0.7.
Conclusions
Breast width emerged as the benchmark of breast aesthetic assessment. Breast projection and the lower pole length had a great impact on unilateral breast aesthetics and should be given priority when improving the breast shape, and appropriate ratio of low pole length and breast projection to breast radius might bring a more satisfying outcome.
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Penn J (1955) Breast reduction. Br J Plast Surg 7(4):357–371
Smith DJ Jr, Palin WE Jr, Katch V, Bennett JE (1986) Surgical treatment of congenital breast asymmetry. Ann Plast Surg 17(2):92–101
Smith DJ Jr, Palin WE Jr, Katch VL, Bennett JE (1986) Breast volume and anthropomorphic measurements: normal values. Plast Reconstr Surg 78(3):331–335
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
Galdino GM, Nahabedian M, Chiaramonte M, Geng JZ, Klatsky S, Manson P (2002) Clinical applications of three-dimensional photography in breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 110(1):58–70
Rigotti C, Ferrigno G, Aliverti A, Pedotti A (1998) Surface scanning: an application to mammary surgery. J Biomed Opt 3(2):161–170
Liu C, Luan J, Mu L, Ji K (2010) The role of three-dimensional scanning technique in evaluation of breast asymmetry in breast augmentation: a 100-case study. Plast Reconstr Surg 126(6):2125–2132
Liu C, Luan J, Ji K, Sun J (2012) Measuring volumetric change after augmentation mammaplasty using a three-dimensional scanning technique: an innovative method. Aesthetic Plast Surg 36(5):1134–1139
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
Kovacs L, Eder M, Hollweck R (2006) New aspects of breast volume measurement using 3-dimensional surface imaging. Ann Plast Surg 57(6):602–610
Kovacs L, Yassouridis A, Zimmermann A (2006) Optimization of 3-dimensional imaging of the breast region with 3-dimensional laser scanners. Ann Plast Surg 56(3):229–236
Ji K, Luan J, Liu C (2012) A prospective study of breast dynamic morphological changes after dual-plane augmentation mammaplasty with 3D scanning technique. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093010
Passalis G, Theoharis T, Miller M, Kakadiaris IA (2003) Noninvasive automatic breast volume estimation for post-mastectomy breast reconstructive surgery. In: Proceedings of the 25th annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37439), Cancun, Mexico, IEEE; September 17–21
Yang J, Zhang R, Shen J, Hu Y, Lv Q (2015) The three-dimensional techniques in the objective measurement of breast aesthetics. Aesthetic Plast Surg 39(6):910–915
Chae M, Rozen W, Spychal R, Huntersmith D (2016) Breast volumetric analysis for aesthetic planning in breast reconstruction: a literature review of techniques. Gland Surg 5(2):212–226
Mallucci P, Branford OA (2012) Concepts in aesthetic breast dimensions: analysis of the ideal breast. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 65(1):8–16
Kuzbari R, Deutinger M, Todoroff BP, Schneider B, Freilinger G (1993) Surgical treatment of developmental asymmetry of the breast long term results. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 27(3):203–207
Hauben DJ, Adler N, Silfen R, Regev D (2003) Breast-areola-nipple proportion. Ann Plast Surg 50(5):510–513
Liu YJ, Thomson JG (2011) Ideal anthropomorphic values of the female breast: correlation of pluralistic aesthetic evaluations with objective measurements. Ann Plast Surg 67(1):7–11
Swanson E (2015) Ideal breast shape: women prefer convexity and upper pole fullness. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(3):641e–643e
Pezner RD, Patterson MP, Hill LR (1985) Breast retraction assessment: an objective evaluation of cosmetic results of patients treated conservatively for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 11(3):575–578
Agbenorku P, Agbenorku M, Iddi A, Amevor E, Sefenu R, Osei D (2011) Measurements of breasts of young West African females: a guideline in anatomical landmarks for adolescent breast surgery. Aesthetic Plast Sur 35(1):49–54
Lewin R, Amoroso M, Plate N, Trogen C, Selvaggi G (2016) The aesthetically ideal position of the nipple-areola complex on the breast. Aesthetic Plast Surg 40(5):724–732
Swanson E (2012) A measurement system for evaluation of shape changes and proportions after cosmetic breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 129(4):982–992
Tebbetts JB, Adams WP (2006) Five critical decisions in breast augmentation using five measurements in 5 minutes: the high five decision support process. Plast Reconstr Surg 116(7):2005–2016
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
LC is considered being first author of this article. JL is considered being corresponding author of this article. LC and JS participated in the scanning and measurement of the breasts. DM and CL participated in the aesthetic evaluation of breasts. LC and JL participated in the analysis of data for the work. All authors reviewed the work and approved it for submission.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
All patients signed informed consents.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, L., Sun, J., Mu, D. et al. What Makes a Difference? Three-Dimensional Morphological Study of Parameters that Determine Breast Aesthetics. Aesth Plast Surg 44, 315–322 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01426-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01426-1