Table 6.

Breast characteristic data compared between the three fit groups (too small, good fit, and too large) using One-Way ANOVA (normally distributed data; difference in group means) or Kruskal–Wallis (non-normally distributed data; difference in mean rank).

Breast characteristic	Fit	N	Mean	SD	SIG	vs. good fit	vs. too large
Breast Volume (mL)	Too small	14	503.0	225.3185	0.04*	0.064	0.039*
	Good fit	30	344.5	152.4872			1
	Too large	53	340.5113	142.4827
Breast Surface Area (cm2)	Too small	14	528.8143	116.4542	0.018*	0.044*	0.018*
	Good fit	30	435.46	102.9021			0.913
	Too large	53	426.2811	91.6439
Anterior Breast Projection (mm)	Too small	14	50.85	11.8747	0.042*	0.062	0.044*
	Good fit	30	42.2467	9.9361			0.977
	Too large	53	42.3509	9.3534
Breast Length (mm)	Too small	14	162.3857	13.9594	0.013*	0.064	0.013*
	Good fit	30	151.4233	15.1327			0.773
	Too large	53	149.1226	13.8933
Breast Width (mm)	Too small	14	173.3	18.1845	0.005*	0.02*	0.006*
	Good fit	30	156.4133	17.3884			0.89
	Too large	53	154.6679	14.9703
Sternal Notch to Nipple Distance (mm)	Too small	10	203.01	14.9471	0.002*	0.006*	0.002*
	Good fit	25	181.724	16.6891			0.989
	Too large	49	180.9408	19.7643
Sternal Notch to Superior Breast Distance (mm)	Too small	14	61.2214	12.9773	0.433	—	—
	Good fit	30	58.1867	9.0009			—
	Too large	53	56.4868	11.0649
Sternal Notch to Inferior Breast Distance (mm)	Too small	14	223.6214	22.1102	0.027*	0.113	0.029*
	Good fit	30	209.61	16.6556			0.549
	Too large	53	205.6038	16.7754

The third last column provides the p-value for the main effects of fit group on each breast characteristic. The final 2 columns provide p-values of the pairwise comparisons between the three fit groups, as determined through post-hoc analysis.

^*represents significance at p < 0.05. For variables that were found to have no significant difference between fit groups, post-hoc tests were not conducted and the corresponding cells were marked with a long dash.