@article{HartmannWeihererSchiltzetal., author = {Hartmann, Robin and Weiherer, Maximilian and Schiltz, Daniel and Baringer, Magnus and Noisser, Vivien and H{\"o}sl, Vanessa and Eigenberger, Andreas and Seitz, Stefan and Palm, Christoph and Prantl, Lukas and Br{\´e}bant, Vanessa}, title = {New aspects in digital breast assessment: further refinement of a method for automated digital anthropometry}, series = {Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics}, volume = {303}, journal = {Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics}, publisher = {Springer Nature}, address = {Heidelberg}, issn = {1432-0711}, doi = {10.1007/s00404-020-05862-2}, pages = {721 -- 728}, abstract = {Purpose: In this trial, we used a previously developed prototype software to assess aesthetic results after reconstructive surgery for congenital breast asymmetry using automated anthropometry. To prove the consensus between the manual and automatic digital measurements, we evaluated the software by comparing the manual and automatic measurements of 46 breasts. Methods: Twenty-three patients who underwent reconstructive surgery for congenital breast asymmetry at our institution were examined and underwent 3D surface imaging. Per patient, 14 manual and 14 computer-based anthropometric measurements were obtained according to a standardized protocol. Manual and automatic measurements, as well as the previously proposed Symmetry Index (SI), were compared. Results: The Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed no significant differences in six of the seven measurements between the automatic and manual assessments. The SI showed robust agreement between the automatic and manual methods. Conclusion: The present trial validates our method for digital anthropometry. Despite the discrepancy in one measurement, all remaining measurements, including the SI, showed high agreement between the manual and automatic methods. The proposed data bring us one step closer to the long-term goal of establishing robust instruments to evaluate the results of breast surgery.}, language = {en} } @article{BrebantWeihererNoisseretal., author = {Br{\´e}bant, Vanessa and Weiherer, Maximilian and Noisser, Vivien and Seitz, Stephan and Prantl, Lukas and Eigenberger, Andreas}, title = {Implants Versus Lipograft: Analysis of Long-Term Results Following Congenital Breast Asymmetry Correction}, series = {Aesthetic Plastic Surgery}, volume = {46}, journal = {Aesthetic Plastic Surgery}, publisher = {Springer Nature}, doi = {10.1007/s00266-022-02843-5}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:898-opus4-32404}, pages = {2228 -- 2236}, abstract = {Aims Congenital breast asymmetry represents a particular challenge to the classic techniques of plastic surgery given the young age of patients at presentation. This study reviews and compares the long-term results of traditional breast augmentation using silicone implants and the more innovative technique of lipografting. Methods To achieve this, we not only captured subjective parameters such as satisfaction with outcome and symmetry, but also objective parameters including breast vol-ume and anthropometric measurements. The objective examination was performed manually and by using the Vectra H2 photogrammetry scanning system. Results Differences between patients undergoing either implant augmentation or lipograft were revealed not to be significant with respect to patient satisfaction with surgical outcome (p= 0.55) and symmetry (p= 0.69). Furthermore, a breast symmetry of 93 \% was reported in both groups. Likewise, no statistically significant volume difference between the left and right breasts was observed in both groups (p\0.41). However, lipograft patients needed on average 2.9 procedures to achieve the desired result, compared with 1.3 for implant augmentation. In contrast, patients treated with implant augmentation may require anumber of implant changes during their lifetime. Conclusion Both methods may be considered for patients presenting with congenital breast asymmetry.}, language = {en} } @article{NoisserEigenbergerWeihereretal., author = {Noisser, Vivien and Eigenberger, Andreas and Weiherer, Maximilian and Seitz, Stephan and Prantl, Lukas and Br{\´e}bant, Vanessa}, title = {Surgery of congenital breast asymmetry - which objective parameter influences the subjective satisfaction with long-term results}, series = {Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics}, journal = {Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics}, publisher = {Springer Nature}, doi = {10.1007/s00404-021-06218-0}, pages = {8}, abstract = {Purpose Congenital breast asymmetry is a serious gynecological malformation for affected patients. The condition hits young women in puberty and is associated with socio-esthetic handicap, depression, and psychosexual problems. Surgical treatment is usually early in the patient's lifetime, so a long-term sustainable solution is important. Although postoperative outcome has been evaluated in several studies before, this study is the first to analyze which objective parameters have the greatest influence on subjective satisfaction with long-term results. Methods Thirty-four patients diagnosed with congenital breast asymmetry that underwent either lipofilling or implant therapy between the years of 2008 to 2019 were examined. On average, our collective comprised patients seven years after surgery. Data were mainly gathered through manual measurements, patient-reported outcome measures (Breast Q™), and breast volumetry based on 3D scans (Vectra® H2, Canfield Scientific). Results Among all analyzed parameters, only areolar diameter correlated significantly negatively with the subjective outcome satisfaction of the patient. Regarding the subjective assessment of postoperative satisfaction with similarity of the breasts, again the mean areolar diameter, but also the difference in areolar diameter and breast volume between the right and left breasts correlated significantly negatively. Conclusion Areolar diameter was revealed as being a significant factor influencing subjective long-term satisfaction in breast asymmetry patients. Moreover, 3D volumetry proves to be an effective tool to substantiate subjective patient assessments. Our findings may lead to further improvements to surgical planning and will be expanded in further studies.}, language = {en} }