ArticleGland surgery2023
Weight to volume conversion: an easy and practical breast volume estimation.
Article in Gland surgery, 2023. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate breast volume estimation is essential for symmetrical breast reconstruction. Easy conversion of the weight of the resected breast tissue to volume could result in precise volume measurements. This study aimed to introduce the use of a mathematical constant (k) to estimate the breast volume from the weight. Methods: Eighty-nine female patients with breast cancer who underwent surgery at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital between September 2010 and February 2011 were enrolled in this prospective study. The mammographic density of each patient was classified according to the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) into groups a, b, c, and d. The breast density number and mathematical constant (k) were calculated, and the data matched. This technique was validated by comparing the measured and calculated volumes. Results: Sixty-six, 22, and 1 patients underwent total mastectomies (TMs), skin-sparing mastectomies (SSMs), and nipple-sparing mastectomies (NSMs), respectively. The breast densities were 1.0629, 1.1545, and 1.2233 g/mL, and the constant number (k) was 0.9409, 0.8662, and 0.8175 for BI-RADS a, combined BI-RADS b and c, and BI-RADS d, respectively. The validation process showed no significant differences between the measured and calculated volumes [95% confidence interval (95% CI)]. The correlation coefficient (r) was 0.984. Conclusions: Accurate breast volume estimation is a key factor in achieving symmetry in breast reconstruction. Combining existing data, including the weight of the resected breast tissue and mammographic density findings, an easy and accurate method to calculate the resected breast volume was introduced.
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.