Acute changes in clinical breast measurements following bra removal:implications for surgical practice

AbstractBackgroundStable measurement of breast position is crucial for objective pre-operative planning and post-operative evaluation. In clinical practice, breast measures are often taken immediately following bra removal. However, research shows that restrictive clothing (such as a bra) can cause acute anatomical changes, leading to the hypothesis that clinical breast measures may change over time following bra removal. This cross-sectional observational study aimed to provide simple clinical guidelines for the measurement of breast position which account for any acute changes in breast position following bra removal.MethodsThirteen participants of varying breast sizes had markers attached to their thorax and nipples to determine clinical measures of sternal notch to nipple distance, internipple distance, breast projection, and vertical nipple position. The positions of these landmarks were recorded using a motion capture system during 10 min of controlled sitting following bra removal.ResultsInternipple distance and breast projection remained unchanged over 10 min, while the resultant sternal notch to nipple distance extended by 2.8 mm in 299 s (right) and 3.7 mm in 348 s (left). The greatest change occurred in the vertical nipple position, which migrated an average of 4.1 mm in 365 s (right) and 6.6 mm in 272 s (left), however, for one participant vertical migration was up to 20 mm.ConclusionsInternipple distance and breast projection can be measured first following bra removal, followed by sternal notch to nipple distance, any measures associated with the vertical nipple position should be made more than 6 min after bra removal. These guidelines have implications for breast surgery, particularly for unilateral reconstruction based on the residual breast position

Is there an elephant in the room? A Response to Batavia et al

Non peer reviewe

Consequences Matter : Compassion in Conservation Means Caring for Individuals, Populations and Species

Funding This research received no external funding. Acknowledgments The manuscript benefitted from significant input from Dan Brockington, J.B. Callicott, Peter Coals, Tim Hodgetts, David Macdonald and Jeremy Wilson. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Reflecting on the role of human‐felid conflict and local use in big cat trade

Illegal trade in big cat (Panthera spp.) body parts is a prominent topic in scientific and public discourses concerning wildlife conservation. While illegal trade is generally acknowledged as a threat to big cat species, we suggest that two enabling factors have, to date, been under‐considered. To that end, we discuss the roles of human‐felid conflict, and “local” use in illegal trade in big cat body parts. Drawing examples from across species and regions, we look at generalities, contextual subtleties, ambiguities, and definitional complexities. We caution against underestimating the extent of “local” use of big cats and highlight the potential of conflict killings to supply body parts

Creating Landscapes of Coexistence: Do Conservation Interventions Promote Tolerance of Lions in Human-dominated Landscapes?

The range-wide decline of lions has led to their conservation becoming a top priority. Protection of free-ranging lion populations is dependent on securing space for lions but also on the ability and desire of local communities to coexist with lions. Our investigation takes a comparative and case study approach to explore the individual and societal desire to maintain current lion populations alongside communities in, or surrounding, Zimbabwe's Hwange National Park, Tanzania's Ruaha National Park, and Kenya's southern Maasailand. Using data from attitudinal questionnaire surveys, we compare the desire to maintain current lion populations as well as the prevalence and success of conservation interventions aimed at increasing human-lion coexistence. In Maasailand, 88% of the respondents expressed a desire to see current lion populations maintained, while only 42% of the respondents in Ruaha and only 5% of the respondents in Hwange expressed this desire. More respondents reported predation by lions (lion predation) on livestock in Maasailand than in Hwange; personal benefits from conservation were greatest in Maasailand; and exposure to conservation education was highest in Ruaha. The Hwange findings were confounded by Zimbabwe's political and economic climate. In Ruaha and Maasailand, communal and individual conservation benefits influenced desired changes to lion population. Once variation between sites was controlled for, twinning personal benefits and conservation education together was most likely to increase an individual's desire to see current lion populations maintained