An Aesthetic Factor Priority List of the Female Breast in Scandinavian Subjects

Background: There is little consensus about the relative determinative value of each individual factor in female breast aesthetics. When performing breast surgery with an aesthetic goal, certain factors will be more important than others. The purpose of this study was to make an aesthetic factor rank list to determine the relative contributions to overall breast aesthetics. Method: Volunteers were scanned using the 3-dimensional Vectra system. Ten Scandinavian plastic surgeons rated 37 subjects, using a validated scoring system with 49 scoring items. The correlation between specific aesthetic factors and overall breast aesthetic scores of the subjects were calculated using Pearson's r, Spearman's rho, and Kendall's tau. Results: A very strong correlation was found between overall breast aesthetic score and lower pole shape (0.876, P <0.0001). This was also true for upper pole shape (0.826, P <0.0001) and breast height (0.821, P <0.0001). A strong correlation was found between overall breast aesthetic score and nipple position (0.733, P <0.0001), breast size (0.644, P <0.0001), and breast width (0.632, P <0.0001). Factors that were only moderately correlated with aesthetic score were intermammary distance (0.496, P = 0.002), nipple size and projection (0.588, P <0.0001), areolar diameter (0.484, P <0.0001), and areolar shape (0.403, P <0.0001). Perceived symmetry was a weak factor (0.363, P = 0.027). Conclusions: Aesthetic factors of the female breast can be ranked in a priority list. Shape of the lower pole and upper pole and breast height are primary factors of female breast aesthetics. These should be prioritized in any aesthetic breast surgery. Vertical dimensional factors seem to be more determinative than horizontal factors.Peer reviewe

NUMERICAL STUDY OF COVARIATE ADAPTIVE RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS WITH QUANTILE REGRESSION

This project presents a numerical study to examine the validity of quantile regression under stratified permuted block randomization. Statistical simulations of type I error rate and power were performed for cases of dependent and independent stratifying covariates as well as for cases where a third covariate is present but excluded from the analyses altogether. The numerical study examined the effect of excluding stratifying covariates from the analyses and found that this resulted in conservative type I error rates and reduced power. A bootstrapped test was subsequently performed in an attempt to correct for the conservative inference which improved type I error and power altogether, but remained too conservative in scenarios where sample size is low or when regression is performed at extreme deciles

Physiologic risk stratification is important to long-term mortality, complications, and readmission in thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Use of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification is important for periprocedural risk stratification. However, the collective effect after adjustment for the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) medical comorbidity grading system on long-term all-cause mortality, complications, and discharge disposition is unknown. We examined these associations in patients after thoracic endograft placement. Data from three thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) trials through 5 years of follow-up were included. Patients with acute complicated type B dissection (n = 50), traumatic transection (n = 101), or descending thoracic aneurysm (n = 66) were analyzed. The patients were stratified into three groups according to the ASA class: I-II, III, and IV. Multivariable proportional hazards regression models were used to examine the effect of ASA class on 5-year mortality, complications, and rehospitalizations after adjustment for SVS risk score and potential confounders. The largest proportion of patients treated by TEVAR across the ASA groups (n = 217) was ASA IV (n = 97; 44.7%; P < .001), followed by ASA III (n = 83; 38.2%) and ASA I-II (n = 37; 17.1%). Among the ASA groups, the ASA I-II patients were, on average, 6 years younger than those with ASA III and 3 years older than those with ASA IV (ASA I-II: age, 54.3 ± 22.0 years; ASA III: age, 60.0 ± 19.7 years; ASA IV: age, 51.0 ± 18.4 years; P = .009). Multivariable adjusted 5-year outcome models showed that ASA class IV, independent of the SVS score, conferred an increased risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 3.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-12.25; P = .0239) and complications (HR, 4.53; 95% CI, 1.69-12.13; P = .0027) but not rehospitalization (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.93-3.68; P = .0817) compared with ASA class I-II. Procedural ASA class is associated with long-term outcomes among post-TEVAR patients, independent of the SVS score. The ASA class and SVS score remain important to patient counseling and postoperative outcomes beyond the index operation

An Aesthetic Factor Priority List of the Female Breast in Scandinavian Subjects

Background: There is little consensus about the relative determinative value of each individual factor in female breast aesthetics. When performing breast surgery with an aesthetic goal, certain factors will be more important than others. The purpose of this study was to make an aesthetic factor rank list to determine the relative contributions to overall breast aesthetics. Method: Volunteers were scanned using the 3-dimensional Vectra system. Ten Scandinavian plastic surgeons rated 37 subjects, using a validated scoring system with 49 scoring items. The correlation between specific aesthetic factors and overall breast aesthetic scores of the subjects were calculated using Pearson’s r, Spearman’s ρ, and Kendall’s τ. Results: A very strong correlation was found between overall breast aesthetic score and lower pole shape (0.876, P < 0.0001). This was also true for upper pole shape (0.826, P < 0.0001) and breast height (0.821, P < 0.0001). A strong correlation was found between overall breast aesthetic score and nipple position (0.733, P < 0.0001), breast size (0.644, P < 0.0001), and breast width (0.632, P < 0.0001). Factors that were only moderately correlated with aesthetic score were intermammary distance (0.496, P = 0.002), nipple size and projection (0.588, P < 0.0001), areolar diameter (0.484, P < 0.0001), and areolar shape (0.403, P < 0.0001). Perceived symmetry was a weak factor (0.363, P = 0.027). Conclusions: Aesthetic factors of the female breast can be ranked in a priority list. Shape of the lower pole and upper pole and breast height are primary factors of female breast aesthetics. These should be prioritized in any aesthetic breast surgery. Vertical dimensional factors seem to be more determinative than horizontal factors