Comparative silicone breast implant evaluation using mammography, sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging: experience with 59 implants.
With the current controversy regarding the safety of silicone implants, the detection and evaluation of implant rupture are causing concern for both plastic surgeons and patients. Our study obtained comparative value analysis of mammography, sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the detection of silicone implant rupture. Twenty-nine symptomatic patients (total of 59 silicone implants) were entered into the study. Intraoperative findings revealed 21 ruptured implants (36 percent). During physical examination, a positive "squeeze test" was highly suggestive of implant rupture. Mammograms were obtained of 51 implants (sensitivity 11 percent, specificity 89 percent). Sonography was performed on 57 implants (sensitivity 70 percent, specificity 92 percent). MRI was performed on 55 implants (sensitivity 81 percent, specificity 92 percent). Sonographically, implant rupture is demonstrated by the "stepladder sign." Double-lumen implants may appear as false-positive results for rupture on sonography. On MRI, the "linguine sign" represents disrupted fragments of a ruptured implant. The most reliable imaging modality for implant rupture detection is MRI, followed by sonogram. Mammogram is the least reliable. Our study supports the clinical indication and diagnostic value of sonogram and MRI in the evaluation of symptomatic breast implant patients.
Ahn
C Y
CY
Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles.
DeBruhl
N D
ND
Gorczyca
D P
DP
Shaw
W W
WW
Bassett
L W
LW
D001941:Breast Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000209:etiology; D018427:Breast Implants / Q000009:adverse effects*; D004868:Equipment Failure; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging; D008327:Mammography; D008875:Middle Aged; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000175:diagnosis*; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D016217:Ultrasonography, Mammary