The aim of this study was to determine number and diameter of milk ducts in the nipple and to investigate the possible influences of age, breast weight, and diameter of the nipple on the number of ducts. Two hundred and twenty-six carcinoma mastectomy specimens were weighed and the nipple diameters measured. The number of ducts was counted in histological cross sections. Mean diameter of the nipple and mean breast weight were 13.9 mm and 844.6 g, respectively. There was a small but statistically significant positive correlation between nipple diameter and number of milk ducts (rho = 0.158; p = 0.01), but no correlation with breast weight. The mean number of ducts in the nipple duct bundle was 17.5. This is significantly higher than the number of ducts reported to open on the nipple surface. This discrepancy could reflect duct branching within the nipple or the presence of some ducts which do not reach the nipple surface. Smaller breast ducts (diameter < 0.5 mm) represent nearly 50% of the nipple ducts and could be a challenge to the ductoscopy technology.
"This may result in mistaking sebaceous or sweat ducts for milk ducts. They also pointed out the possibility for ducts to anastomose [7,11]. Ramsay et al.  identified a mean number of 9 milk ducts (range 4–18) in each lactating breast using ultrasound imaging. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: In vitro and in vivo analyses differ between the number of milk ducts found in the lactating breast, and there is a lack of knowledge as to whether or not external factors in the mother or the child affect the number of ductal orifices. The aim of this study was to determine the number of milk duct orifices in vivo and to investigate the possible influence of variable parameters in mother and infant.
Study design: Prospective clinical trial. In 98 breastfeeding women we investigated the nipple surface in order to identify the number of milk duct orifices using Marmet's manual milk expression technique. In addition mothers were interviewed on different parameters of birth and breastfeeding.
Every nipple had 3.90 +/- 1.48 milk duct orifices on average. There was no significant difference between left and right breasts. The use of a breast pump in addition to breastfeeding did not have any effect on the number of ductal orifices.Multiparous women exhibited more ductal orifices (8.5 +/- 3.0) as compared to primipara (7.1 +/- 2.7). Boys were associated with significantly more ductal orifices in their mother's right breast (4.2 +/- 1.7) than girls (3.5 +/- 1.4). Furthermore boys were breastfed for longer per session. A shorter birth height of males correlated with more ductal orifices in left nipples. Fluid intake of mothers was associated with a higher number of ductal orifices. Restless infant behavior could not be explained by less milk duct orifices. Pain in the breast during breastfeeding did not have an influence on ductal orifices either. Psychological criteria, such as duration of maternity leave and total intended breastfeeding period, did not affect the number of orifices in the papilla mammaria of breasts during lactation.
For the first time an in vivo investigation of the number of ductal orifices in lactating women was conducted non-invasively and associations with variables in the mother and the child, birth parameters in infants, and breastfeeding parameters in mothers and children were assessed. We conclude that the number of activated ductal orifices on the surface of the nipple is primarily associated with functional aspects.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Presents results on using a statistical model motivated by the
wavelet transform to represent non-stationary signals typically
encountered in machinery monitoring applications. The authors propose
the use of a frame-based system in which the data in each frame is
modeled as a multiscale stochastic process. The parameters of a
multiscale model are used as features for each frame, where each frame
of features is modeled as a sample of a multivariate, multimodal
distribution. Classification of machine states based on monitoring
signals is performed by comparing likelihood scores for each machine
state. The authors present an example of applying the system to data
consisting of a superposition of damped sinusoids, as a way of
illustrating system performance for the case of transient monitoring
signals. They compare their system to one which is trained using a
DFT-based (non-time-frequency-based) representation (in particular, LPC
coefficients) and show that their system exhibits both superior
performance as well as greater robustness to noise in the signals. They
also compare results using multiscale parameters versus LPC coefficients
for the case of synthesized autoregressive signals and for the case of
actual, measured signals from a weld depth monitoring system
Time-Frequency and Time-Scale Analysis, 1994., Proceedings of the IEEE-SP International Symposium on; 11/1994
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Precise anatomical relationships between ducts and vasculature within the nipple remain unknown. This study investigated nipple microvessels and their position relative to ducts.
Nipple and duct bundle cross-sectional areas were measured in 48 specimens. Vessels located within the central duct bundle or within a peripheral rim were counted in 7 non-irradiated and 5 irradiated nipples.
Mean nipple diameter was 11.1 mm and duct bundle diameter 5.2 mm. A 2-mm and a 3-mm peripheral rim of nipple tissue would result in complete duct excision in 96% and 87% of sections, respectively. Twenty-nine percent of vessels are located in the duct bundle. A 2-mm rim contains 50%; a 3-mm rim contains 66%. Similar proportions were seen in irradiated nipples.
This study describes a strategy to balance duct removal with vascular preservation. Ducts can be excised leaving a rim of nipple tissue that contains a large proportion of microvessels.
American journal of surgery 11/2007; 194(4):433-7. DOI:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.06.019 · 2.29 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.