ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2023
Assessment of Three Breast Volume Measurement Techniques: Single Marking, MRI and Crisalix 3D Software
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Technological Integration in Aesthetic Practice: A Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence, Augmented Reality and Robotics in Cosmetic Procedures.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Impact of donor site on fat graft survival in autologous fat transfer to the breast: A systematic review.JPRAS open · 2026Review
- The Role of 3-dimensional Imaging and Telemedicine in Breast Augmentation Consultations: A Prospective Cohort Study of 1153 Cases and a Randomized Controlled Trial in Thailand.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Ultrasound-Assisted Pocket Creation in Subglandular Breast Augmentation.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Article
- Three-Dimensional Printing in Breast Reconstruction: Current and Promising Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMeasuring 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
methodsFourteen patients indicated for mammoplasty were selected. Three breast volume measurement techniques were compared: Pessoa's single marking technique, MRI and Crisalix 3D software
resultsAverage age was 30.93 ± 10.25 years. The breast volume was 1554.54 ± 512.54 cm
conclusionWhen compared to MRI, breast volume measurement using Pessoa's single marking technique showed no statistically significant difference between them. However, the Crisalix 3D 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 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
37337054What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.