Novel decision algorithm for the diagnosis of silicone gel breast implant ruptures

被引：7

作者：

Bogetti P. ^{[1
]}

Fraccalvieri M. ^{[1
]}

Cappello G. ^{[2
]}

Balocco P. ^{[3
]}

Mariscotti G. ^{[2
]}

Durando M. ^{[2
]}

Mangia A.G. ^{[1
]}

Gianfala A. ^{[1
]}

Ruka E. ^{[1
]}

Bruschi S. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Plastic Surgery Unit, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, University of Torino, Turin

[2] Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Radiotherapy, Radiology Institute, University of Torino, A. O. U. Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino – Presidio Ospedaliero Molinette, Via Genova 3, Turin

[3] Plastic Surgery Unit, Ospedale Mauriziano, Turin

来源：

European Journal of Plastic Surgery | 2018年 / 41卷 / 6期

关键词：

Breast implant; Breast reconstruction; Implant rupture; Magnetic resonance imaging; Ultrasound;

D O I：

10.1007/s00238-018-1434-z

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Background: The main complications of breast implantation are caused by capsular contracture and implant rupture. Although the evaluation of implant rupture is primarily driven by patient symptoms, including change in breast shape, size, or firmness, most patients with breast implant rupture do not clinically manifest significant symptoms, thereby developing a so-called silent rupture. For all these reasons, its diagnosis generally relies on imaging techniques such as mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging. Methods: We conducted a retrospective non-randomized study, carried out between March 2013 and August 2017. In this study, we evaluated 30 symptomatic patients who underwent mono or bilateral prosthetic breast reconstruction, a total of 51 implants after skin-sparing mastectomy or nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer and following breast implant removal or replacement due to suspicious rupture or capsule contraction. Results: Ultrasound suspected ruptures in 32/51 (62.7%) implants, while 19/51 implants resulted intact upon ultrasound examination. The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound were 90 and 80% respectively. Magnetic resonance imaging suspected ruptures in 30/51 (58.8%) implants, while 21/51 (41.1%) implants resulted intact. The magnetic resonance imaging sensitivity and specificity were 87 and 85%, respectively. Conclusions: Ultrasound evaluation may be the first level exam in case of suspicious symptomatic breast implant rupture. Importantly, our results demonstrate that magnetic resonance imaging could be avoided in all those cases where an extracapsular rupture has been diagnosed using ultrasound. Level of Evidence: Level IV, diagnostic study. © 2018, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

引用

页码：677 / 684

页数：7

共 18 条

[1]

Handel N., Garcia M.E., Wixtrom R., Breast implant rupture: causes, incidence, clinical impact, and management, Plast Reconstr Surg, 132, 5, pp. 1128-1137, (2013)

[2]

Holmich L.R., Fryzek J.P., Kjoller K., Breiting V.B., Jorgensen A., Krag C., McLaughlin J.K., The diagnosis of silicone breast-implant rupture: clinical findings compared with findings at magnetic resonance imaging, Ann Plast Surg, 54, 6, pp. 583-589, (2005)

[3]

(2006)

[4]

Chung K.C., Malay S., Shauver M.J., Kim H.M., Economic analysis of screening strategies for rupture of silicone gel breast implants, Plast Reconstr Surg, 130, 1, pp. 225-237, (2012)

[5]

Vestito A., Mangieri F.F., Ancona A., Minervini C., Perchinunno V., Rinaldi S., Study of breast implant rupture: MRI versus surgical findings, Radiol Med, 117, 6, pp. 1004-1018, (2012)

[6]

Gorczyca D.P., Gorczyca S.M., Gorczyca K.L., The diagnosis of silicone breast implant rupture, Plast Reconstr Surg, 120, pp. 49S-61S, (2007)

[7]

Gray L., Silicone breast implants and magnetic resonance imaging screening for rupture: do U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommendations reflect an evidence-based practice approach to patient care?, Plast Reconstr Surg, 122, 5, pp. 1591-1592, (2008)

[8]

Brown S.L., Middleton M.S., Berg W.A., Soo M.S., Pennello G., Prevalence of rupture of silicone gel breast implants revealed on MR imaging in a population of women in Birmingham, Alabama, AJR Am J Roentgenol, 175, 4, pp. 1057-1064, (2000)

[9]

Reynolds H.E., Buckwalter K.A., Jackson V.P., Siwy B.K., Alexander S.G., Comparison of mammography, sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of silicone-gel breast implant rupture, Ann Plast Surg, 33, pp. 247-255, (1994)

[10]

Huch R.A., Kunzi W., Debatin J.F., Wiesner W., Krestin G.P., MR imaging of the augmented breast, Eur Radiol, 8, pp. 371-376, (1998)

← 1 2 →