ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Three-Dimensional Surface Imaging in Postoperative Volumetric Assessment of Implant-Only and Composite Breast Augmentation.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThree-dimensional (3D) surface imaging is better validated for postoperative volume assessment in implant-only augmentation than in composite breast augmentation (CBA). In CBA, the extent to which anatomical features and biological variability contribute to volumetric deviation remains insufficiently defined.
methodsThis retrospective study included 94 patients (188 breasts) who underwent either implant-only augmentation (Group 0) or composite augmentation with fat grafting (Group 1). Breast volumes were measured with the Vectra XT system preoperatively and at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Net postoperative volume gain was compared with implant volume, and both signed and absolute volumetric deviations were calculated. Mixed-effects and generalized estimating equation models were used to identify factors associated with deviation magnitude and direction.
resultsSix-month postoperative breast volume was greater in the composite group than in the implant-only group (p = 0.0186). Signed volumetric deviation was significantly more negative in composite cases (p < 0.001). A net volume gain smaller than implant volume was observed in 20.9% of composite breasts and 48.0% of implant-only breasts (p < 0.001). Among breasts with a net gain smaller than implant volume, the median deviation magnitude was similar in both groups, at approximately 22 mL. Greater breast base width was independently associated with increased absolute volumetric deviation (p = 0.005), whereas intersternal distance influenced deviation direction but not deviation magnitude. Postoperative BMI change was also independently associated with signed volumetric deviation (p < 0.001). Agreement between 3- and 6-month measurements was high (ICC = 0.95).
conclusionsVectra XT showed stable postoperative volumetric tracking after implant-only breast augmentation and may also be useful for follow-up assessment in composite cases. In composite augmentation, variations from the theoretically expected volume appear to reflect biological variability in fat graft retention and anatomical footprint rather than instability of the imaging system. 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
42864546What 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.