Clinical applications of three-dimensional digital photography include assessments of breast volume and contour. It was hypothesized that knowledge of preoperative and postoperative breast volumes might facilitate obtaining symmetry after reconstructions with autologous tissue or implants. Breast reconstruction was performed for 382 women during a 4-year period. Of those women, 334 completed all phases of the reconstruction and underwent symmetry analysis. Reconstructive procedures included the use of pedicle transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps, free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps, deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps, superior gluteal artery perforator flaps, or latissimus dorsi flaps or expanders/implants. Three-dimensional digital photographic images were obtained for 33 women, whereas the remaining 301 women were not digitally photographed. The differences in symmetry after the initial reconstruction and after the secondary procedures were compared for all women and for the groups with and without three-dimensional photographic images. For the group with three-dimensional imaging, initial volume symmetry was obtained for 73 percent, initial contour symmetry was obtained for 27 percent, secondary procedures were necessary for 70 percent, final volume symmetry was obtained for 88 percent, and final contour symmetry was obtained for 79 percent. For the group without three-dimensional photographic images, initial volume symmetry was obtained for 57 percent, initial contour symmetry was obtained for 34 percent, secondary procedures were necessary for 50 percent, final volume symmetry was obtained for 80 percent, and final contour symmetry was obtained for 71 percent. The results demonstrated that there was no significant difference in final contour and volume symmetry between women who had or did not have three-dimensional digital photographic images taken. However, the results demonstrated that autologous tissue reconstructions resulted in improved contour and volume symmetry, compared with implant reconstructions.
Baltimore, Md.; and San Francisco, Calif.
From the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, and the Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco.
Received for publication December 2, 2002;
revised January 13, 2003.
Maurice Y. Nahabedian, M.D.
Johns Hopkins Hospital
601 North Caroline Street 8152C
Baltimore, Md. 21287
Presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, in San Antonio, Texas, November 2 to 6, 2002.