ArticleJPRAS open2026
Portable structured-light 3D volumetry for breast and flap assessment: Technical validation and workflow development.
Article in JPRAS open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To establish and technically validate a portable structured light volumetry workflow for breast sized objects and surgical tissues, and to identify practical acquisition strategies for clinically relevant problems such as inframammary fold occlusion and intraoperative tissue assessment. Methods: Four components were performed using a portable structured light scanner (Revopoint MIRACO Plus®): (1) phantom validation using 300-500 mL balloons (n = 25) against calibrated syringe volumes; (2) a mannequin posture experiment (300/500/700 mL) comparing 20° forward lean with supine acquisition using a subtractive modeling method (SMM); (3) biologic tissue simulation using porcine skin-subcutis, porcine muscle, and bovine muscle, with three scans per Near and Far mode; and (4) an observational intraoperative scan series (10 flaps; 10 reduction blocks). Accuracy was assessed using regression, Bland-Altman analysis, mean absolute percentage error, and paired comparisons. Results: Phantom scans showed near-identity agreement with reference volumes (R² = 0.995), with a mean bias of +2.4 mL and limits of agreement from -7.4 to +12.2 mL. In the mannequin model, forward lean reduced bias by 20.0 mL at 500 mL and 95.6 mL at 700 mL versus supine SMM (both Conclusions: Portable structured light scanning provides accurate and repeatable volumetry while defining a practical workflow for breast and surgical tissue assessment.
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.