+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Evaluation of the rupture of silicone breast implants by mammography, ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in asymptomatic patients: correlation with surgical findings



Evaluation of the rupture of silicone breast implants by mammography, ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in asymptomatic patients: correlation with surgical findings



Sao Paulo Medical Journal 122(2): 41-47



Different imaging methods can identify the integrity of breast implants and also the extent of possible silicone leakage. Mammography, ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging are often used to evaluate the integrity of breast implants, usually in patients that are symptomatic for rupture. A group of clinically asymptomatic patients was taken as a sample. These patients wanted to remove or change their breast implants for psychological or cosmetic reasons. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of breast implant rupture in an asymptomatic population. Prospective study. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. The participants were 44 asymptomatic patients who subsequently had implants surgically removed. Eighty-three implants were evaluated by both film-screen mammography and high-resolution sonography and 77 implants were evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging. The sensitivity and specificity of mammography, ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging were assessed using predetermined diagnostic criteria for implant rupture. All radiological signs were discussed and false positives and false negatives were retrospectively evaluated to identify the pitfalls in the investigations. The respective sensitivity and specificity of mammography were 20% and 89%; sonography, 30% and 81%; and magnetic resonance imaging, 64% and 77%. The differences between patients with breast implants for cosmetic and oncological reasons were discussed. Our experience suggests that magnetic resonance imaging seems to be the best imaging method on its own for the evaluation of rupturing among asymptomatic patients.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 049001780

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 15257358

DOI: 10.1590/s1516-31802004000200002


Related references

The Life Span of Silicone Gel Breast Implants and a Comparison of Mammography, Ultrasonography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detecting Implant Rupture. Annals of Plastic Surgery 41(6): 577-586, 1998

The life span of silicone gel breast implants and a comparison of mammography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging in detecting implant rupture: a meta-analysis. Annals of Plastic Surgery 41(6): 577-85; Discussion 585-6, 1998

Comparative Study of Breast Implant Rupture Using Mammography, Sonography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Correlation with Surgical Findings. Yearbook of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery 2010: 186-187, 2010

Comparative study of breast implant rupture using mammography, sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with surgical findings. Breast Journal 14(6): 532-537, 2008

Comparative silicone breast implant evaluation using mammography, sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging: experience with 59 implants. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 94(5): 620-627, 1994

Silicone Breast Implant Rupture: Pitfalls of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Relative Efficacies of Magnetic Resonance, Mammography, and Ultrasound. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery 104(7): 2054-2062, 1999

Silicone breast implant rupture: pitfalls of magnetic resonance imaging and relative efficacies of magnetic resonance, mammography, and ultrasound. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 104(7): 2054-2062, 1999

Magnetic resonance imaging of breast implants. Significance compared to mammography and ultrasonography. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 119(43): 1453-1457, 1994

Comparison of mammography, sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of silicone-gel breast implant rupture. Annals of Plastic Surgery 33(3): 247-55; Discussion 256-7, 1994

Accuracy of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in detecting failure of breast implants filled with silicone gel. Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery 33(4): 415-418, 1999

Magnetic resonance mammography of patients with silicone breast implants: Prospectives for the future. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology 4(1): 177-196, 1995

The diagnosis of silicone breast-implant rupture: clinical findings compared with findings at magnetic resonance imaging. Annals of Plastic Surgery 54(6): 583-589, 2005

Myofibroblastoma of the Breast: Ultrasonography, Mammography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Features With Pathologic Correlation. Ultrasound Quarterly 34(2): 99, 2018

Comparative Silicone Breast Implant Evaluation Using Mammography, Sonography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery 94(5): 620-627, 1994

A new, simple method to describe magnetic resonance imaging of silicone breast implants: silicone implants reporting and data system. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 132(6): 1085e-1087e, 2013