Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27047788›Full record

ReviewGland surgery2016

Breast volumetric analysis for aesthetic planning in breast reconstruction: a literature review of techniques.

Michael P Chae, Warren Matthew Rozen, Robert T Spychal, David J Hunter-Smith

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gland surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Michael P Chae1 Monash University Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Group (Peninsula Clinical School), Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia ; 2 Department of Surgery, Frankston Hospital, Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia.
Warren Matthew Rozen1 Monash University Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Group (Peninsula Clinical School), Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia ; 2 Department of Surgery, Frankston Hospital, Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia.
Robert T Spychal1 Monash University Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Group (Peninsula Clinical School), Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia ; 2 Department of Surgery, Frankston Hospital, Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia.
David J Hunter-Smith1 Monash University Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Group (Peninsula Clinical School), Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia ; 2 Department of Surgery, Frankston Hospital, Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate volumetric analysis is an essential component of preoperative planning in both reconstructive and aesthetic breast procedures towards achieving symmetrization and patient-satisfactory outcome. Numerous comparative studies and reviews of individual techniques have been reported. However, a unifying review of all techniques comparing their accuracy, reliability, and practicality has been lacking.

methodsA review of the published English literature dating from 1950 to 2015 using databases, such as PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, and EMBASE, was undertaken.

resultsSince Bouman's first description of water displacement method, a range of volumetric assessment techniques have been described: thermoplastic casting, direct anthropomorphic measurement, two-dimensional (2D) imaging, and computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. However, most have been unreliable, difficult to execute and demonstrate limited practicability. Introduction of 3D surface imaging has revolutionized the field due to its ease of use, fast speed, accuracy, and reliability. However, its widespread use has been limited by its high cost and lack of high level of evidence. Recent developments have unveiled the first web-based 3D surface imaging program, 4D imaging, and 3D printing.

conclusionsDespite its importance, an accurate, reliable, and simple breast volumetric analysis tool has been elusive until the introduction of 3D surface imaging technology. However, its high cost has limited its wide usage. Novel adjunct technologies, such as web-based 3D surface imaging program, 4D imaging, and 3D printing, appear promising.

Indexed as

3D printing3D surface imaging4D imaginganthropomorphicBreastcomputed tomography (CT)magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)mammographythermoplastic castingtwo-dimensional photography (2D photography)ultrasonographyvolumetric analysiswater displacement

Identifiers

PMID27047788
PMCPMC4791357

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.