Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Translation and cultural adaptation of the GENDER-Q with pilot implementation among patients undergoing masculinizing chest surgery.

Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS·2026
Same author

Gaps in public health surveillance of elective surgery: a national analysis of inpatient data, COVID-19 impact, and coding validity in Germany (2006-2023).

Frontiers in public health·2026
Same author

Obituary for professor Eberhard Rabe.

Phlebology·2026
Same author

Becker Expander Versus Fixed-volume Breast Implant: A Single Surgeon Multicenter Evaluation of Becker Expander and Literary Review.

Aesthetic surgery journal·2026
Same author

Case Report: Acral <i>MYH10::ALK</i> fusion superficial mesenchymal neoplasm: first proof of metastatic potential.

Frontiers in oncology·2026
Same author

The Bilateral Inferior Pedicled Anterior Intercostal Artery Perforator-Sparing Flap for Correcting Funnel Chest Deformity in Gender-affirming Masculinizing Chest Surgery.

Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Oct 4, 2025

Integrating Augmented Reality Tools in Breast Cancer Related Lymphedema Prognostication and Diagnosis
06:03

Integrating Augmented Reality Tools in Breast Cancer Related Lymphedema Prognostication and Diagnosis

Published on: February 6, 2020

6.7K

Breast Reconstruction- Developing a Volumetric Outcome Algorithm.

Siling Yang1, Marie-Luise Klietz1,2,3, Tobias Hirsch1,2,3

  • 1Division for Plastic Surgery, Department for Traumatology and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
|February 8, 2022
PubMed
Summary

This study examines how different breast reconstruction methods affect postoperative volume loss. Three techniques were compared: flap-based, prosthesis-based, and fat transplantation. The authors found that each method has a distinct volume loss pattern. Flap-based reconstruction showed the most stable volume retention. Prosthesis-based methods had greater variability. Fat transplantation introduced unpredictable changes. These findings may help surgeons plan procedures to reduce asymmetry and reoperations. The study emphasizes the importance of tracking volume changes for better outcomes.

Keywords:
Autologous breast reconstructionBreastBreast surgeryFree flapBreast reconstruction outcomesSurgical volume trackingPostoperative asymmetryReconstruction technique comparison

Frequently Asked Questions

More Related Videos

Reconstruction of 3-Dimensional Histology Volume and its Application to Study Mouse Mammary Glands
10:59

Reconstruction of 3-Dimensional Histology Volume and its Application to Study Mouse Mammary Glands

Published on: July 26, 2014

14.6K
Quantification of Breast Cancer Cell Invasiveness Using a Three-dimensional 3D Model
08:08

Quantification of Breast Cancer Cell Invasiveness Using a Three-dimensional 3D Model

Published on: June 11, 2014

15.9K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Oct 4, 2025

Integrating Augmented Reality Tools in Breast Cancer Related Lymphedema Prognostication and Diagnosis
06:03

Integrating Augmented Reality Tools in Breast Cancer Related Lymphedema Prognostication and Diagnosis

Published on: February 6, 2020

6.7K
Reconstruction of 3-Dimensional Histology Volume and its Application to Study Mouse Mammary Glands
10:59

Reconstruction of 3-Dimensional Histology Volume and its Application to Study Mouse Mammary Glands

Published on: July 26, 2014

14.6K
Quantification of Breast Cancer Cell Invasiveness Using a Three-dimensional 3D Model
08:08

Quantification of Breast Cancer Cell Invasiveness Using a Three-dimensional 3D Model

Published on: June 11, 2014

15.9K

Area of Science:

  • Plastic and reconstructive surgery
  • Breast reconstruction outcomes research
  • Surgical volume analysis

Background:

Breast reconstruction outcomes depend on volume preservation. Postoperative volume loss affects asymmetry and reoperation rates. Prior research has shown that volume loss patterns differ by reconstruction method. No prior work had resolved how these differences impact surgical planning. This gap motivated a study comparing volume changes across techniques. Autologous flap-based reconstruction has known volume stability. Prosthesis-based methods may show higher variability. Fat transplantation introduces new challenges in volume tracking.

Purpose Of The Study:

This study aimed to analyze volume loss patterns in breast reconstruction. The goal was to compare three techniques: flap-based, prosthesis-based, and fat transplantation. Understanding these differences could improve preoperative planning. The authors propose that volume tracking reduces asymmetry and reoperations. No prior work had systematically compared these methods. The study focuses on volumetric changes over time. Each technique's unique volume trajectory was examined. This approach may guide surgeons in selecting optimal methods.

Main Methods:

The study compared three reconstruction techniques using volumetric analysis. Volume changes were tracked postoperatively for each method. Structural patterns of volume loss were evaluated. Flap-based, prosthesis-based, and fat grafting methods were included. No specific patient selection criteria were mentioned. Volume measurements were likely taken at multiple timepoints. The study design involved retrospective analysis of outcomes. This approach allowed comparison of volume trajectories across techniques.

Main Results:

Flap-based reconstruction showed minimal volume loss over time. Prosthesis-based methods demonstrated greater variability in volume retention. Fat transplantation resulted in unpredictable volume changes. The study found significant differences between techniques. No exact numerical values were reported in the abstract. Structural patterns of volume loss were distinct for each method. These findings suggest technique-specific planning is necessary. The authors propose that tracking these patterns improves outcomes.

Conclusions:

The authors suggest that volume loss patterns differ by reconstruction method. Flap-based techniques may preserve volume better than others. Prosthesis-based methods show greater variability in volume retention. Fat transplantation introduces unpredictable volume changes. These findings may guide preoperative planning decisions. The study proposes that tracking volume trajectories reduces asymmetry. No claims of essentiality or necessity were made in the abstract. The authors emphasize the importance of technique-specific volume analysis.

The study found that volume loss patterns differ significantly between flap-based, prosthesis-based, and fat transplantation methods.

Tracking volume changes helps reduce postoperative asymmetry and the need for reoperation, according to the authors.

Flap-based reconstruction demonstrated minimal volume loss compared to other techniques.

Fat grafting introduces unpredictable volume changes, according to the study's findings.

The authors propose that understanding volume trajectories could guide preoperative design and reduce asymmetry.

The study suggests that tracking volume changes could improve outcomes and reduce reoperation rates.