title: PIP breast implants: rupture rate and correlation with breast cancer.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate the incidence of Poly Implant Prosthése (PIP) rupture as assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the prevalence of the detected signs and the potential correlation with breast carcinoma.
  
  
  METHODS
  67 patients with silicone breast implants and clinical indications for breast MRI were evaluated for a total of 125 implants: 40 (32%) PIP in 21 patients and 85 non-PIP in 46 patients (68%), the latest considered as control group. A 1.5-T MR imaging device was used in order to assess implant integrity with dedicated sequences and in 6 cases a dynamic study was performed for characterizing breast lesions. Two radiologists with more than 5 years' experience in the field of MRI evaluated in consensus all MR images searching for the presence of clear signs of intra or extra-capsular implant rupture.
  
  
  RESULTS
  20/40 (50%) PIP implants presented signs of intra-capsular rupture: linguine sign in 20 cases (100%), tear-drop sign in 6 (30%). In 12/20 cases (60%), MRI signs of extra-capsular rupture were detected. In the control group, an intra-capsular rupture was diagnosed in 12/85 cases (14%) associated with extra-capsular one in 5/12 cases (42%). Among the six cases with suspected breast lesions, in 2/21 patients with PIP implants (10%) a breast carcinoma was diagnosed (mucinous carcinoma, n=1; invasive ductal carcinoma, n=1). In 4/46 patients (9%) with non-PIP implants, an invasive ductal carcinoma was diagnosed.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The rupture rate of PIP breast implants is significantly higher than non-PIP (50% vs 14%). MRI represents the most accurate imaging tool for evaluating breast prostheses and the linguine sign is the most common MRI sign to be searched. The incidence of breast carcinoma does not significantly differ between the PIP and non-PIP implants and a direct correlation with breast cancer can not been demonstrated.
authors: M
authors: M
authors: Moschetta
authors: M
authors: M
authors: Telegrafo
authors: I
authors: I
authors: Cornacchia
authors: L
authors: L
authors: Vincenti
authors: V
authors: V
authors: Ranieri
authors: A
authors: A
authors: Cirili
authors: L
authors: L
authors: Rella
authors: A A
authors: AA
authors: Stabile Ianora
authors: G
authors: G
authors: Angelelli
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D018427:Breast Implants; D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000453:epidemiology* / Q000209:etiology; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging; D008875:Middle Aged; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011475:Prosthesis Failure
references: Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2011 Oct;35(5):891-900
references: 21487917
references: J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012 Jun;65(6):697-704
references: 22405818
references: Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Jun;129(6):1372-8
references: 22634654
references: Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2012 Dec;57(6):558-66
references: 22651997
references: Br J Surg. 2013 May;100(6):761-7
references: 23475661
references: J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013 Sep;66(9):1182-7
references: 23725742
references: Magn Reson Imaging. 2013 Oct;31(8):1292-7
references: 23791545
references: J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014 Mar;67(3):302-7
references: 24522122
references: Eur Radiol. 2014 Jun;24(6):1167-75
references: 24599622
references: Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Oct;120(5):1401-6
references: 17898620
references: Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001 Sep 15;108(4):848-58; discussion 859-63
references: 11547138
references: Radiology. 1993 Jun;187(3):761-8
references: 8497626
references: Radiology. 1993 Oct;189(1):95-8
references: 8372224
references: Radiology. 1994 Mar;190(3):819-23
references: 8115633
references: Ann Plast Surg. 1994 Aug;33(2):201-8
references: 7979055
references: Ann Plast Surg. 2006 Mar;56(3):243-7
references: 16508351
references: JAMA. 2008 Nov 5;300(17):2030-5
references: 18984890
references: Breast J. 2008 Nov-Dec;14(6):532-7
references: 19054000
references: Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Mar;127(3):1029-44
references: 21364405