Five methods of breast volume measurement: a comparative study of measurements of specimen volume in 30 mastectomy cases

Ragip Kayar, Serdar Civelek, Murat Cobanoglu, Osman Gungor, Hidayet Catal, Mustafa Emiroglu, Ragip Kayar, Serdar Civelek, Murat Cobanoglu, Osman Gungor, Hidayet Catal, Mustafa Emiroglu

Abstract

Background: To compare breast volume measurement techniques in terms of accuracy, convenience, and cost.

Methods: Breast volumes of 30 patients who were scheduled to undergo total mastectomy surgery were measured preoperatively by using five different methods (mammography, anatomic [anthropometric], thermoplastic casting, the Archimedes procedure, and the Grossman-Roudner device). Specimen volume after total mastectomy was measured in each patient with the water displacement method (Archimedes). The results were compared statistically with the values obtained by the five different methods.

Results: The mean mastectomy specimen volume was 623.5 (range 150-1490) mL. The breast volume values were established to be 615.7 mL (r = 0.997) with the mammographic method, 645.4 mL (r = 0.975) with the anthropometric method, 565.8 mL (r = 0.934) with the Grossman-Roudner device, 583.2 mL (r = 0.989) with the Archimedes procedure, and 544.7 mL (r = 0.94) with the casting technique. Examination of r values revealed that the most accurate method was mammography for all volume ranges, followed by the Archimedes method.

Conclusion: The present study demonstrated that the most accurate method of breast volume measurement is mammography, followed by the Archimedes method. However, when patient comfort, ease of application, and cost were taken into consideration, the Grossman-Roudner device and anatomic measurement were relatively less expensive, and easier methods with an acceptable degree of accuracy.

Keywords: breast density; macromastia; mammography-negativity; oncoplastic surgery; reduction mammaplasty.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Mammographic breast volume measurement method (8).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Grossmann-Roudner-Disks.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Measurement with GR discs.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Anatomic (anthropometric) measurement.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Measurement with Archimedes method.
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
Measurement with casting method.
Figure 7.
Figure 7.
The scaled cylinders for specimen volume measurement.

References

    1. Kayar R, Catal H. Macromastia and breast cancer. Izmir Tepecik Hstn Derg. 2007;17:121–30.
    1. Brown RW, Cheng Y, Kurtay M. A formula for surgical modifications of the breast. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;106:1342–5.
    1. Cochrane RA, Valasiadou P, Wilson ARM, Al-Chazal SK, Mcmillan RD. Cosmesis and satisfaction after breast-conserving surgery correlates with the percentage of breast volume excised. Br J Surg. 2003;90:1505–9.
    1. Bullstrode NW, Shrotria S. Prediction of cosmetic outcome following conservative breast surgery using breast volume measurements. Breast. 2001;10:124–6.
    1. Kovacs L, Eder M, Hollweck R, et al. Comparison between breast volume measurement using 3 D surface imaging and classical techniques. Breast. 2007;16:137–45.
    1. Kalbhen CL, McGill J, Fendley PM, Corrigan KW, Angelats J. Mammographic determination of breast volume: Comparing different methods. Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173:1643–9.
    1. Grossman A, Roudner LA. A simple means for accurate breast volume determination. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1980;66:851–2.
    1. Qiao Q, Zhon G, Ling Y. Breast volume measurement in young Chinese women and clinical applications. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1997;21:362–8.
    1. Tezel E, Numanoglu A. Practical do-it yourself device for accurate volume measurement of breast. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;105:1019–23.
    1. Edsander-Nord A, Wickman M, Jurell G. Measurement of breast volume with thermoplastic casts. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1996;30:129–32.
    1. Palin WE, von Fraunhofer JA, Smith DJ. Measurement of breast volume: Comparison of techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1986;78:253–6.
    1. Fowler PA, Casey CE, Cameron GG, Foster MA, Knight CH. Cyclic changes in composition and volume of the breast during the menstrual cycle, measured by magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990;97:595–602.
    1. Caruso MK, Guillot TS, Nguyen T, Greenway FL. The cost effectiveness of three different measures of breast volume. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2006;30:16–20.
    1. Bulstrode N, Bellamy E, Shrotria S. Breast volume assessment: Comparing five different techniques. Breast. 2001;10:117–23.
    1. Sigurdson LJ, Kirkland SA. Breast volume determination in breast hypertrophy: An accurate method using two anthropomorphic measurements. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118:313–20.
    1. Katariya RN, Forrest APM, Gravelle IH. Breast volumes in cancer of breast. Br J Cancer. 1974;29:270.
    1. Losken A, Seify H, Denson DD, Paredes AA, Carlson GW. Validating three-dimensional imaging of the breast. Ann Plast Surg. 2005;54:471–6.
    1. Malini S, Smith EO, Goldzieher W. Measurement of breast volume by ultrasound during normal menstrual cycles and with oral contraceptive use. Obstet Gynecol. 1985;66:538–41.
    1. Kovacs L, Eder M, Hollweck R, et al. New aspects of breast volume measurement using 3-dimensional surface imaging. Ann Plast Surg. 2006;57:602–10.
    1. Aslan G, Terzioglu A, Tuncali D, Bingul F. Breast reduction: Weight versus volume. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112:339–40.
    1. Fung JT, Chan SW, Chiu AN, Cheung PS, Lam SH. Mammographic determination of breast volume by elliptical cone estimation. World J Surg. 2010;34:1442–5.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir