Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34646718›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2021

Potential of Intraoperative 3D Photography and 3D Visualization in Breast Reconstruction.

Krista M Nicklaus, Haoqi Wang, Mary Catherine Bordes, Alex Zaharan, Urmila Sampathkumar, Audrey L Cheong, Gregory P Reece, Summer E Hanson, Fatima A Merchant, Mia K Markey

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Principles of Photography and Videography: Lessons From Orthoplastic Sarcoma Surgery.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2024
    Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

Krista M NicklausDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Haoqi WangDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Mary Catherine BordesDepartment of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex.
Alex ZaharanDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Urmila SampathkumarDepartment of Computer Science, University of Houston, Houston, Tex.
Audrey L CheongDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Tex.
Gregory P ReeceDepartment of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex.
Summer E HansonSection of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Chicago Medicine and Biological Sciences, Chicago, Ill.
Fatima A MerchantDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Mia K MarkeyDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.

Funding

3-D modeling-based decision support for optimizing quality of life following breast reconstructionR01CA203984 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI MARKEY, MIA K, MERCHANT, FATIMA AZIZ · 2016 to 2020
$3.4M
3-D Computer Modeling for Optimizing Body Image following Breast ReconstructionR01CA143190 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI MARKEY, MIA K · 2010 to 2014
$2.9M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA143190NCI NIH HHS R01 CA203984
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although pre- and postoperative three-dimensional (3D) photography are well-established in breast reconstruction, intraoperative 3D photography is not. We demonstrate the process of intraoperative acquisition and visualization of 3D photographs for breast reconstruction and present clinicians' opinions about intraoperative visualization tools.

methodsMastectomy specimens were scanned with a handheld 3D scanner during breast surgery. The 3D photographs were processed to compute morphological measurements of the specimen. Three visualization modalities (screen-based viewing, augmented reality viewing, and 3D printed models) were created to show different representations of the 3D photographs to plastic surgeons. We interviewed seven surgeons about the usefulness of the visualization methods.

resultsThe average time for intraoperative acquisition of 3D photographs of the mastectomy specimen was 4 minutes, 8 seconds ± 44 seconds. The average time for image processing to compute morphological measurements of the specimen was 54.26 ± 40.39 seconds. All of the interviewed surgeons would be more inclined to use intraoperative visualization if it displayed information that they are currently missing (eg, the target shape of the reconstructed breast mound). Additionally, the surgeons preferred high-fidelity visualization tools (such as 3D printing) that are easy-to-use and have minimal disruption to their current workflow.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates that 3D photographs can be collected intraoperatively within acceptable time limits, and quantitative measurements can be computed timely to be utilized within the same procedure. We also report surgeons' comments on usability of visualization methods and of measurements of the mastectomy specimen, which can be used to guide future surgical practice.

Identifiers

PMID34646718
PMCPMC8500585

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.