Three-dimensional Assessment of the Breast: Validation of a Novel, Simple and Inexpensive Scanning Process.
3D scanning
photogrammetry
surface imaging
three-dimensional
virtual surgical planning
Journal
In vivo (Athens, Greece)
ISSN: 1791-7549
Titre abrégé: In Vivo
Pays: Greece
ID NLM: 8806809
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
13
02
2019
revised:
05
03
2019
accepted:
06
03
2019
entrez:
28
4
2019
pubmed:
28
4
2019
medline:
21
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Methods to assess three-dimensionally the breast surface are increasingly used in plastic and reconstructive surgery. The aim of this study was to validate the use of the Structure Sensor 3D scanner (Occipital, Inc., Boulder, CO, USA) connected to an iPad Pro (Apple, Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA) as a novel, inexpensive and handheld three-dimensional scanning process. Surface images of a medical human female anatomy torso model of rigid plastic were repeatedly acquired with Structure Sensor 3D scanner and compared with those obtained using two clinically established 3D imaging systems. Digital measurements of vector and surface breast distances were analyzed using Mimics® Innovation Suite 20 medical imaging software (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium). The analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed no statistically significant difference among measurements obtained using different scanning processes for all the variables examined (p>0.05). The study demonstrates analogous practicability and reliability for surface image acquisition using the newly introduced Structure Sensor 3D scanner and other clinically established scanners.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/AIM
OBJECTIVE
Methods to assess three-dimensionally the breast surface are increasingly used in plastic and reconstructive surgery. The aim of this study was to validate the use of the Structure Sensor 3D scanner (Occipital, Inc., Boulder, CO, USA) connected to an iPad Pro (Apple, Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA) as a novel, inexpensive and handheld three-dimensional scanning process.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Surface images of a medical human female anatomy torso model of rigid plastic were repeatedly acquired with Structure Sensor 3D scanner and compared with those obtained using two clinically established 3D imaging systems. Digital measurements of vector and surface breast distances were analyzed using Mimics® Innovation Suite 20 medical imaging software (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed no statistically significant difference among measurements obtained using different scanning processes for all the variables examined (p>0.05).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The study demonstrates analogous practicability and reliability for surface image acquisition using the newly introduced Structure Sensor 3D scanner and other clinically established scanners.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31028206
pii: 33/3/839
doi: 10.21873/invivo.11548
pmc: PMC6559897
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
839-842Informations de copyright
Copyright© 2019, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.
Références
Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2018 Dec;50(6):393-399
pubmed: 30620977
Am J Surg. 2006 Oct;192(4):548-51
pubmed: 16978973
Anticancer Res. 1998 May-Jun;18(3C):2219-24
pubmed: 9703788
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018 Oct;71(10):1417-1423
pubmed: 29970344
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014 Apr;67(4):489-97
pubmed: 24529695
Anticancer Res. 2015 Jul;35(7):4229-34
pubmed: 26124383
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Oct;132(4):810-822
pubmed: 24076673
Ann Plast Surg. 2009 May;62(5):518-22
pubmed: 19387153
Aesthet Surg J. 2019 Mar 14;39(4):NP36-NP44
pubmed: 30239592
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Jan;141(1):196e-197e
pubmed: 28938370
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2019 Feb;72(2):243-272
pubmed: 30527707
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016 Oct;44(10):1719-1724
pubmed: 27614543
Clin Plast Surg. 2015 Oct;42(4):437-50
pubmed: 26408435
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Sep;138(3):551e-552e
pubmed: 27140039
Ann Plast Surg. 2005 May;54(5):471-6; discussion 477-8
pubmed: 15838205
PLoS One. 2017 Sep 8;12(9):e0184498
pubmed: 28886154
Gland Surg. 2016 Apr;5(2):212-26
pubmed: 27047788
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Jun;121(6):1875-1885
pubmed: 18520872
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Nov;138(5):944e-945e
pubmed: 27391823
Anticancer Res. 2014 Mar;34(3):1099-114
pubmed: 24596348
Anticancer Res. 2017 Oct;37(10):5395-5398
pubmed: 28982848
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018 Feb 08;6(2):e1649
pubmed: 29616164
Ann Plast Surg. 2006 Mar;56(3):229-36
pubmed: 16508349
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Mar;137(3):603e-616e
pubmed: 26910704
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010 Jan;125(1):393-400
pubmed: 20048631
Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2018 Apr;63(2):134-139
pubmed: 28911890
J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2016 Dec 28;7(4):e4
pubmed: 28154748
Ann Plast Surg. 2006 Mar;56(3):237-42
pubmed: 16508350
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Mar;139(3):761-769
pubmed: 28234862
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 May;135(5):1295-1304
pubmed: 25835245
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Dec;74(12):2506.e1-2506.e10
pubmed: 27669371
Ann Plast Surg. 2009 May;62(5):570-5
pubmed: 19387164
Med Eng Phys. 2019 Jan;63:63-71
pubmed: 30467027
Aesthet Surg J. 2017 Feb;37(2):179-187
pubmed: 27986753
Aesthet Surg J. 2018 May 15;38(6):579-585
pubmed: 29360971
Arch Plast Surg. 2016 Sep;43(5):466-9
pubmed: 27689056