Markovic Aleksandra, Pessoa Salustiano Gomes de Pinho, Leite José Alberto Dias, de Alcântara Fernando Soares, Collaço Bernardo Gabriele, Ariel de Lima Diego
Department of Surgery, UFC - Universidade Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
Department of Health Sciences, UFERSA - Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-Árido, Rua Francisco Mota, 572, Pres. Costa e Silva, Mossoró, RN, 57259625-900, Brazil.
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2023 Oct;47(5):1751-1758. doi: 10.1007/s00266-023-03432-w. Epub 2023 Jun 19.
Measuring breast volume is important to obtain satisfactory breast surgery results, and many techniques are used for this purpose. Thus, the aim of the present study was to compare 3 breast volume techniques: Pessoa's single marking technique, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and Crisalix 3D software.
Fourteen patients indicated for mammoplasty were selected. Three breast volume measurement techniques were compared: Pessoa's single marking technique, MRI and Crisalix 3D software. The volumes were tabulated and analyzed using R software.
Average age was 30.93 ± 10.25 years. The breast volume was 1554.54 ± 512.54 cm, as measured by the MRI technique (considered the gold standard), 1199.64 ± 403.13 cm using Crisalix 3D software and 1518.04 ± 468.72 cm by Pessoa's single marking technique. Comparison between the Crisalix 3D software and MRI techniques using the pairwise t test demonstrated a statistically significant difference (t = 4.3957, df = 27, p value = 0001543), but no significant difference between the single marking and MRI techniques (t = 1.3841, df = 27, p value = 0.1777).
When compared to MRI, breast volume measurement using Pessoa's single marking technique showed no statistically significant difference between them. However, the Crisalix 3D technique exhibited a difference in relation to MRI. Anthropometric measurements are useful in measuring breast volume because they are easy to obtain, practical and inexpensive, and should be part of a plastic surgeon's arsenal.
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 .
测量乳房体积对于获得满意的乳房手术效果很重要，为此人们使用了多种技术。因此，本研究的目的是比较三种乳房体积测量技术：佩索阿单标记技术、磁共振成像（MRI）和Crisalix 3D软件。
选取了14名拟行乳房成形术的患者。比较了三种乳房体积测量技术：佩索阿单标记技术、MRI和Crisalix 3D软件。使用R软件将体积制成表格并进行分析。
平均年龄为30.93±10.25岁。通过MRI技术（被视为金标准）测得乳房体积为1554.54±512.54立方厘米，使用Crisalix 3D软件测得为1199.64±403.13立方厘米，通过佩索阿单标记技术测得为1518.04±468.72立方厘米。使用配对t检验比较Crisalix 3D软件和MRI技术，结果显示存在统计学显著差异（t = 4.3957，自由度 = 27，p值 = 0.001543），但单标记技术和MRI技术之间无显著差异（t = 1.3841，自由度 = 27，p值 = 0.1777）。
与MRI相比，使用佩索阿单标记技术测量乳房体积在两者之间未显示出统计学显著差异。然而，Crisalix 3D技术与MRI相比存在差异。人体测量在测量乳房体积方面很有用，因为它们易于获取、实用且成本低廉，应该成为整形外科医生的手段之一。
证据级别IV：本刊要求作者为每篇文章指定证据级别。有关这些循证医学评级的完整描述，请参阅目录或在线作者指南www.springer.com/00266 。
