A comparison of volume and anthropometric breast measurements using the Crisalix and VECTRA XT 3-dimensional surface imaging systems in women who have undergone breast-conserving surgery

Main Article Content

Astrid Leusink, MBChB (UCT) MRCS Rachel O'Connell, MBBS BSc FRCS MD (Res) Stephanie L Dean, MBChB BSc Rosa Di Micco, MD Naser Alotaibi, MB BCh BAO(Hons) Peter A Barry, MBBS (Hons) MPhil FRACS Anna M Kirby, (Hons) MBBChir MA MRCP FRCR MD (Res) Jennifer E Rusby, BM BCh DM FRCS (Gen Surg)

Abstract

Introduction


Three-dimensional surface imaging (3D-SI) of the breasts enables the measurement of anthropometric distances and breast volume. These measurements may be used in surgical planning and to facilitate clear communication with patients. The aim of this study was to compare measurements using a portable 3D-SI system, Crisalix, with a more established non-mobile camera, the VECTRA XT.


Methods


Participants were imaged three times using the Crisalix and the VECTRA XT system. Breast volume, sternal notch to nipple distance, nipple to nipple distance and breast width were measured.  Intra-observer agreement was measured using the co-efficient of variation (CV). Agreement between the two methods was represented with Bland Altman agreement plots.


Results


Intra-method variation was low for both methods (maximum CV 3.3% for Crisalix and 3.2% for VECTRA XT), with only nipple-to-nipple distance being statistically significant, marginally in favour of VECTRA. The mean inter-method differences were small but the limits of agreement (LoA) were wide for all parameters: best for sternal notch to nipple distance, mean difference (MD) -0.03cm and LoA 1.8 to -1.8cm; the widest LoA were for breast volume: MD 31.1cm3 and LoA 286.7 to -244.6cm3.


Conclusion


This is the first comparison of anthropometric distances and breast volume measured using the two most widely used 3D-SI systems, Crisalix and VECTRA XT.  Intra-method variation is low but currently it would not be appropriate to use the two systems interchangeably due to the wide limits of agreement for all four parameters assessed.

Article Details

How to Cite
LEUSINK, Astrid et al. A comparison of volume and anthropometric breast measurements using the Crisalix and VECTRA XT 3-dimensional surface imaging systems in women who have undergone breast-conserving surgery. Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 9, n. 4, apr. 2021. ISSN 2375-1924. Available at: <https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/2395>. Date accessed: 14 may 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v9i4.2395.
Section
Research Articles

References

1. Burke PH, Beard LF. Stereo-photogrammetry of the face. Rep Congr Eur Orthod Soc. 1967:279-93.
2. Burke P, Banks P, Beard L, Tee J, Hughes C. Stereophotographic measurement of change in facial soft tissue following surgery. BrJOral Sure. 1983;21(4):237-245.
3. Hidalgo D, Sinno S. Current Trends and Controversies in Breast Augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137(4):1142-50.
4. O'Connell RL, Stevens RJ, Harris PA, Rusby JE. Review of three-dimensional (3D) surface imaging for oncoplastic, reconstructive and aesthetic breast surgery. Breast. Aug 2015;24(4):331-42. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2015.03.011
5. Henseler H, Kuznetsova A, Vogt P, Rosenhahn B. Validation of the Kinect device as a new portable imaging system for three-dimensional breast assessment. S1748-6815(13)00689-X pii ;10.1016/j.bjps.2013.12.025 doi. JPlastReconstrAesthetSurg. 2014;NOT IN FILE.
6. Hoeffelin H, Jacquemin D, Defaweux V, Nizet JL. A Methodological Evaluation of Volumetric Measurement Techniques including Three-Dimensional Imaging in Breast Surgery. 10.1155/2014/573249 doi. BiomedResInt. 2014;2014:573249. NOT IN FILE.
7. Patete P, Eder M, Raith S, Volf A, Kovacs L, Baroni G. Comparative assessment of 3D surface scanning systems in breast plastic and reconstructive surgery. 1553350612463443 pii ;10.1177/1553350612463443 doi. SurgInnov. 2013;20(5):509-515. NOT IN FILE.
8. Patete P, Riboldi M, Spadea MF, et al. Motion Compensation in Hand-held Laser Scanning for Surface Modeling in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Annals of Biomedical Engineering. Sep 2009;37(9):1877-1885. doi:10.1007/s10439-009-9752-8
9. Wheat JS, Choppin S, Goyal A. Development and assessment of a Microsoft Kinect based system for imaging the breast in three dimensions. Medical Engineering & Physics. Jun 2014;36(6):732-738. doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2013.12.018
10. Oliveira HP, Silva MD, Magalhaes A, Cardoso MJ, Cardoso JS. Is Kinect Depth Data Accurate for the Aesthetic Evaluation after Breast Cancer Surgeries? Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis, Ibpria 2013. 2013 2013;7887:261-268.
11. Stefanie T. L. Pöhlmann JH, Andrew I. Williamson, Jamie C. Sergeant, Alan Hufton,Ashu Gandhi, Christopher J. Taylor, Susan M. Astley. Breast Volume Measurement Using a Games Console Input Device, Breast Imaging. Breast Volume Measurement Using a Games Console Input Device, Breast Imaging. 2014;8539:666-678.
12. AR G, RL OC, PA B, et al. 3-Dimensional Objective Aesthetic Evaluation to Replace Panel Assessment After Breast Conserving Treatment. Breast Cancer2020.
13. Lin F, Hong W, Zeng L, Kong X, Feng W, Luo S. A Prospective Study of Breast Morphological Changes and the Correlative Factors After Periareolar Dual-Plane Augmentation Mammaplasty with Anatomic Implant. Aesthetic Plast Surg. Dec 2020;44(6):1965-1976. doi:10.1007/s00266-020-01665-7
14. Killaars RC, Preuβ MLG, de Vos NJP, et al. Clinical Assessment of Breast Volume: Can 3D Imaging Be the Gold Standard? Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. Nov 2020;8(11):e3236. doi:10.1097/gox.0000000000003236
15. Godden AR, Micha A, Pitches C, et al. 14. A Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) of 3-Dimensional Simulation of Aesthetic Outcome in Breast Conserving Treatment (BCT). European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2019/05/01/ 2019;45(5):880. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2019.01.200
16. O'Connell RL, Khabra K, Bamber JC, et al. Validation of the Vectra XT three-dimensional imaging system for measuring breast volume and symmetry following oncological reconstruction. Breast Cancer Res Treat. Jun 2018;doi:10.1007/s10549-018-4843-6
17. G E. Development and implementtion of a web-enabled 3D consultation breast augmentation surgery based on 3D-image reconstruction.
18. Chae M, Rozen W, Spychal R, Hunter-Smith D. Breast volumetric analysis for aesthetic planning in breast reconstruction: a literature review of techniques. Gland Surg. 2016;5(2):212-226.
19. Probst H, Choppin J, Wheat M, Harrison A. The development of a low cost 3D surface imaging system to measure breast volume: Defining minimum standards using an adapted Delphi consensus study. J Plast Reconstr Ästhet Surg. 2015;68(12):1170-1772.
20. Kim JH, Park JW, Woo KJ. Prediction of the Ideal Implant Size Using 3-Dimensional Healthy Breast Volume in Unilateral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction. Medicina (Kaunas). Sep 24 2020;56(10)doi:10.3390/medicina56100498
21. Wood KL, Zoghbi Y, Margulies IG, Ashikari AY, Jacobs J, Salzberg CA. Is the Vectra 3D Imaging System a Reliable Tool for Predicting Breast Mass? Ann Plast Surg. Jul 2020;85(S1 Suppl 1):S109-s113. doi:10.1097/sap.0000000000002333
22. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. Feb 1986;1(8476):307-10.
23. Lee W, Kim M, Lew D, Song S, Lee D. Three-Dimensional Surface Imaging is an Effective Tool for Measuring Breast Volume: A Validation Study. Arch Plast Surg. 2016;43:430-437.
24. Göpper M, Neubauer J, Kalash Z, Stark G, Simunovic F. Improved accuracy of breast volume calculation from 3D surface imaging data using statistical shape models. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(11):e0233586.
25. Steen K, Isaac K, Murphy B, Beber B, Brown M. Three-Dimensional Imaging and Breast Measurements: How Predictable Are We? Aesthet Surg. 2018;38(6):616-22.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Obs.: This plugin requires at least one statistics/report plugin to be enabled. If your statistics plugins provide more than one metric then please also select a main metric on the admin's site settings page and/or on the journal manager's settings pages.