The sonographic appearances of breast implant rupture

Lake, ES; Ahmad, Sarfraz; Dobrashian, Richard

doi:10.1016/j.crad.2013.03.014

Cited by 18 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…32 Despite these small studies, ultrasound is still recommended as a highly effective tool in varying hands, provided a careful methodological approach is followed, and knowledge of pitfalls is considered. 33 Based on our findings we would recommend that PIP implant explantation should not be offered solely on the basis of patient history and clinical impression, as is currently recommended. Considering our results, the prior evidence pertaining to silent ruptures, and the risk surgery can entail, it is clear that the reliability of clinical findings is not in the best interest of the patient, particularly given the availability of ultrasound.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Diagnosing PIP breast implant failure: A prospective analysis of clinical and ultrasound accuracy

Mennie

Quaba

Smith³

et al. 2015

Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Diagnosing PIP breast implant failure: A prospective analysis of clinical and ultrasound accuracy

Mennie

Quaba

Smith³

et al. 2015

Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, most silicone implant ruptures are intracapsular. Numerous US findings of intracapsular silicone implant rupture, including the stepladder sign-a series of horizontal echogenic straight or curvilinear lines traversing the interior of the implant-have been described [7][8][9], but the variability in reported accuracy of sonographic findings [10][11][12][13][14], combined with the wellknown user dependence of this technology, often makes sonographic findings somewhat equivocal. MRI.…”

Section: Usmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This study reported a negative predictive value of 85% for US. Sonographic findings of implant rupture are described [7][8][9]24], but US is hampered by interobserver variability. An economic modeling study [25] recently proposed using US in asymptomatic patients, with MRI performed only in patients with abnormal US-detected implant findings.…”

Section: Mrimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

ACR Appropriateness Criteria ® Breast Implant Evaluation

Lourenço

Moy²,

Baron

et al. 2018

Journal of the American College of Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Breast implant imaging varies depending on patient age, implant type, and symptoms. For asymptomatic patients (any age, any implant), imaging is not recommended. Rupture of saline implants is often clinically evident, as the saline is resorbed and there is a change in breast contour. With saline implants and equivocal clinical findings, ultrasound (US) is the examination of choice for patients less than 30 years of age, either mammography/digital breast tomosynthesis or US may be used for those 30 to 39 years of age, and mammography/digital breast tomosynthesis is used for those 40 years and older. For patients with suspected silicone implant complication, MRI without contrast or US is used for those less than 30 years of age; MRI without contrast, mammography/digital breast tomosynthesis, or US may be used for those 30 to 39 years of age; and MRI without contrast or mammography/digital breast tomosynthesis is used for those 40 years and older. Patients with unexplained axillary adenopathy and silicone implants (current or prior) are evaluated with axillary US. For patients 30 years and older, mammography/digital breast tomosynthesis is performed in conjunction with US. Last, patients with suspected breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma are first evaluated with US, regardless of age or implant type. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

show abstract

“…7 Although breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is at present considered the gold standard imaging method for breast implant rupture detection, breast ultrasound (US) imaging is still the first-step investigation in Europe. [8][9][10][11][12] This situation has arisen mainly because of economic reasons and to greater compliance on the part of the patient with breast US rather than MRI. 13 The aim of this study is to review and correlate our surgical findings and breast ultrasonography signs of possible implant rupture along the last generation implant up to 6 years.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%