ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2024
Morphological Aesthetics Assessment of the Predicted 3D Simulation Results and the Actual Results of Breast Augmentation.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preoperative 3-dimensional Simulation in Aesthetic Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough 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.
objectivesWe 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.
methodsThe 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.
resultsIn 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.
conclusionsOur 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 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.