Cargando…

Intraoperative 3D Comparison of Round and Anatomical Breast Implants: Dispelling a Myth

Background: Thanks to 3D imaging, it is possible to measure the influence of different parameters on breast augmentation. In this study, we compare the effect of different shapes and sizes of breast implants on the topography of the resulting breast. Furthermore, the impact of different breast impla...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lotter, Luisa, Zucal, Isabel, Brébant, Vanessa, Heine, Norbert, Hartmann, Robin, Mueller, Karolina, Prantl, Lukas, Schiltz, Daniel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8745801/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35011890
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11010149
_version_ 1784630434010759168
author Lotter, Luisa
Zucal, Isabel
Brébant, Vanessa
Heine, Norbert
Hartmann, Robin
Mueller, Karolina
Prantl, Lukas
Schiltz, Daniel
author_facet Lotter, Luisa
Zucal, Isabel
Brébant, Vanessa
Heine, Norbert
Hartmann, Robin
Mueller, Karolina
Prantl, Lukas
Schiltz, Daniel
author_sort Lotter, Luisa
collection PubMed
description Background: Thanks to 3D imaging, it is possible to measure the influence of different parameters on breast augmentation. In this study, we compare the effect of different shapes and sizes of breast implants on the topography of the resulting breast. Furthermore, the impact of different breast implants on inter-landmark distances and on changes of the nipple position was assessed. Methods: This interventional prospective study was carried out on 10 female patients after collecting informed consent. 3D scans of the native and augmented breasts were performed intraoperatively with small, medium, and large sizes of both anatomical and round implants, resulting in a total of n = 130 single breast scans. These scans were analyzed for topographic shift quantification, nipple migration, and inter-landmark distances of the breast. Results: Implant size, but not implant shape leads to significant topographic shifts of the breast (p < 0.001 and p = 0.900, respectively). Both round and anatomical implants lead to a significantly higher volumetric increase in the upper quadrants compared to the lower quadrants (p < 0.001). Nipple migration into the superomedial quadrant was seen in about 90% of augmentations. No evident differences in inter-landmark distances were observed when round and anatomical implants of different sizes were compared. Conclusions: Implant size rather than shape influences the postoperative aesthetic results. No significant difference in topographic shift was found comparing round and anatomical implants, suggesting that both implant shapes result in comparable aesthetic outcomes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8745801
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87458012022-01-11 Intraoperative 3D Comparison of Round and Anatomical Breast Implants: Dispelling a Myth Lotter, Luisa Zucal, Isabel Brébant, Vanessa Heine, Norbert Hartmann, Robin Mueller, Karolina Prantl, Lukas Schiltz, Daniel J Clin Med Article Background: Thanks to 3D imaging, it is possible to measure the influence of different parameters on breast augmentation. In this study, we compare the effect of different shapes and sizes of breast implants on the topography of the resulting breast. Furthermore, the impact of different breast implants on inter-landmark distances and on changes of the nipple position was assessed. Methods: This interventional prospective study was carried out on 10 female patients after collecting informed consent. 3D scans of the native and augmented breasts were performed intraoperatively with small, medium, and large sizes of both anatomical and round implants, resulting in a total of n = 130 single breast scans. These scans were analyzed for topographic shift quantification, nipple migration, and inter-landmark distances of the breast. Results: Implant size, but not implant shape leads to significant topographic shifts of the breast (p < 0.001 and p = 0.900, respectively). Both round and anatomical implants lead to a significantly higher volumetric increase in the upper quadrants compared to the lower quadrants (p < 0.001). Nipple migration into the superomedial quadrant was seen in about 90% of augmentations. No evident differences in inter-landmark distances were observed when round and anatomical implants of different sizes were compared. Conclusions: Implant size rather than shape influences the postoperative aesthetic results. No significant difference in topographic shift was found comparing round and anatomical implants, suggesting that both implant shapes result in comparable aesthetic outcomes. MDPI 2021-12-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8745801/ /pubmed/35011890 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11010149 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Lotter, Luisa
Zucal, Isabel
Brébant, Vanessa
Heine, Norbert
Hartmann, Robin
Mueller, Karolina
Prantl, Lukas
Schiltz, Daniel
Intraoperative 3D Comparison of Round and Anatomical Breast Implants: Dispelling a Myth
title Intraoperative 3D Comparison of Round and Anatomical Breast Implants: Dispelling a Myth
title_full Intraoperative 3D Comparison of Round and Anatomical Breast Implants: Dispelling a Myth
title_fullStr Intraoperative 3D Comparison of Round and Anatomical Breast Implants: Dispelling a Myth
title_full_unstemmed Intraoperative 3D Comparison of Round and Anatomical Breast Implants: Dispelling a Myth
title_short Intraoperative 3D Comparison of Round and Anatomical Breast Implants: Dispelling a Myth
title_sort intraoperative 3d comparison of round and anatomical breast implants: dispelling a myth
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8745801/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35011890
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11010149
work_keys_str_mv AT lotterluisa intraoperative3dcomparisonofroundandanatomicalbreastimplantsdispellingamyth
AT zucalisabel intraoperative3dcomparisonofroundandanatomicalbreastimplantsdispellingamyth
AT brebantvanessa intraoperative3dcomparisonofroundandanatomicalbreastimplantsdispellingamyth
AT heinenorbert intraoperative3dcomparisonofroundandanatomicalbreastimplantsdispellingamyth
AT hartmannrobin intraoperative3dcomparisonofroundandanatomicalbreastimplantsdispellingamyth
AT muellerkarolina intraoperative3dcomparisonofroundandanatomicalbreastimplantsdispellingamyth
AT prantllukas intraoperative3dcomparisonofroundandanatomicalbreastimplantsdispellingamyth
AT schiltzdaniel intraoperative3dcomparisonofroundandanatomicalbreastimplantsdispellingamyth