The Value of Ultrasound in the Evaluation of the Integrity of Silicone Breast Implants

Rukanskienė, Dalia; Bytautaitė, Greta; Česnauskaitė, Agnė; Pilipaitytė, Loreta; Aštrauskas, Tautrimas; Jonaitienė, Eglė

doi:10.3390/medicina57050440

Cited by 13 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Over the past decade, ultrasound has been used as an effective diagnostic tool for evaluating a number of breast-related diseases 17 and complications associated with breast implants. [19][20][21][22] Breast implants are thought to be easily distinguished from the surrounding breast tissue because of the prominent echogenic lines generated on HRUS imaging. As can be seen in the SSC (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…16 Ultrasound is a noninvasive, nonirradiating, cost-effective imaging modality that has been demonstrated as a valid diagnostic tool in many clinical specialties, including breast screening. 17,18 Several studies spread across the literature have highlighted the positive contribution that ultrasound provides in diagnostic breast screening, including the detection of breast cancer in women with dense breast tissue 17 and the assessment of device-related complications, [19][20][21][22] in addition to evaluating breast implant filler type, successfully distinguishing between saline-filled and silicone-filled breast implant devices. 21 To date, evidence on the effectiveness of ultrasound in evaluating breast implant surface types is scarce.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ultrasonographic Identification of Shell Surface Types in Commercially Available Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implants

Herrera-Mora,

Solis-Chaves,

Hernandez-Aviles

et al. 2023

Plastic &Amp; Reconstructive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implant-based breast surgery, whether for augmentation or reconstruction cases, continues to show strong growth globally, and according to several statistical databases, it is one of the top performed cosmetic procedures worldwide. 1,2 However, despite its continued popularity, over the past decade, the safety of breast implant devices has raised concern because of several incidents surrounding the quality and the design of the devices that have resulted in global product Background: Breast implant safety issues have resulted in the need for global product recalls and medical device tracing. Conventional methods of breast implant tracing, have to date proven to be unsuccessful. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of high-resolution ultrasound (HRUS) screening in identifying implanted breast devices. Methods: Data from 113 female patients undergoing preoperative ultrasound screening for secondary breast surgery between 2019 and 2022 was prospectively reviewed to evaluate the effectiveness of HRUS imaging with the aid of a sonographic surface catalog to identify the surface and brand type of implanted breast devices. To corroborate the findings and assess the reproducibility of the approach, further evaluations were replicated in New Zealand white rabbits and compared with the results found in humans. Results: In the human recipients, implant surface and brand types were correctly identified by ultrasound imaging in 99% (112 of 113) and 96% (69 of 72) of the cases, either consultation-only or revision, respectively. This constituted an overall success rate of 98% (181 of 185). Furthermore, in a corroborating New Zealand white rabbit model where full-scale commercial implants were introduced and monitored over many months, from the total 28 analyzed, the surface was accurately identified in a total of 27 cases (the one failure being before generation of a sonograph surface catalogue), demonstrating an overall success rate of 96.4%. Conclusion: HRUS is, therefore, a valid and first-hand tool for breast implant imaging that can correctly evaluate both surface type and brand type alongside other variables such as implant placement, positioning, flipping, or rupture. (Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 153: 730e, 2024.) Clinical Relevance Statement: HRUS is a valid and first-hand tool for the identification and traceability of breast implants that evaluates surface type and brand type. This low-cost, accessible, and reproducible practice provides patients with peace of mind and surgeons with a promising diagnostic tool.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasonographic Identification of Shell Surface Types in Commercially Available Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implants

Herrera-Mora,

Solis-Chaves,

Hernandez-Aviles

et al. 2023

Plastic &Amp; Reconstructive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Breast implant ruptures are classified as intra-capsular and extra-capsular [33]. Intra-capsular rupture of a breast implant is complicated to identify with routine imaging methods such as mammography or ultrasound [34]. Therefore, it is usually detected during surgery.…”

Section: Implant-related Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current Challenges in Breast Implantation

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Breast implantation (BI) is the most common plastic surgery worldwide performed among women. Generally, BI is performed both in aesthetic and oncoplastic procedures. Recently, the prevalence of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) or breast implant illness (BII) has aroused concerns. As a result, several countries, like Australia, Korea or the United Kingdom, introduced national registries dedicated to the safety and quality of BI surgeries. This narrative review aimed to focus on the clinical challenges, management and the current state of knowledge of BI. Both short and long-term outcomes of BI are determined by various alternatives and differences, which surgeons must consider during the planning and performing breast augmentation along with further complications or risk of reoperation. Proper preoperative decisions and aspects of surgical technique emerged to be equally important. The number of performed breast reconstructions is increasing, providing the finest aesthetic results and improving patient’s quality of life. Choice of prosthesis varies according to individual preferences and anatomical variables. A newly diagnosed cases of BIA-ALCL with lacking data on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment are placing it as a compelling medical challenge. Similarly, BII remains one of the most controversial subjects in reconstructive breast surgery due to unspecified diagnostic procedures, and recommendations.

show abstract

“…25,26 Standard ultrasound has proven to be as useful as HRUS or MRI for postoperative assessment of breast implants. 12,29 The sensitivity and specificity of standard ultrasound for detecting intracapsular and extracapsular implant rupture is comparable or superior to MRI in recent studies. 31,32…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Published rates of rotation range from 0% to 42%, with most researchers reporting rotations in less than 10% of women. 4,[6][7][8][10][11][12][13][14] Some of these studies evaluated a relatively small number of women or only assessed implant rotation visible on clinical examination within a short period of time after surgery. 3,[5][6][7][8]11 Several large, long-term studies did not report the rate of rotation, only the rate of malposition of all types.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anatomical Breast Implant Assessment Using Ultrasound: A Case Series from the International Breast Implant Check Clinic

Jaeger,

Randquist,

Gahm

2023

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Breast augmentation with anatomic implants can achieve a natural look, but over time, implant-related complications can occur. This includes a risk of potential rotation, which can cause a change in breast shape. Reported rates of rotation vary widely (0%–42%). Implant rotation is often detected by physical examination only or as a perioperative finding. Change in breast shape after augmentation requires clinical evaluation. In-office ultrasound allows for detailed assessment of implants for rotation and other complications. Methods: Women with anatomical breast implants seeking follow-up at the International Breast Implant Check Clinic in Stockholm, Sweden, from April 2020 to July 2022 were included in the study. Using a standardized protocol, subjective symptoms were recorded, and a physical examination followed by an ultrasound assessment was performed by a single board-certified plastic surgeon (M.J.) trained in implant assessment via ultrasound. Rotation was defined as an implant rotated past 30 degrees off the breast midline at 6 o’clock. Results: The study included 308 women (mean age 40.1, range 20-78) with bilateral anatomical implants. Overall, 40 women (13.0%) reported a change in breast shape; 35 had one or more implant-related complications, including five with rotation on ultrasound. Of the 308 women, 11 (3.6%) had rotations upon physical examination, and an additional 10 cases were identified using ultrasound. Conclusions: Rotation is a potential complication of anatomical breast implants. However, in this study, change in breast shape was more commonly caused by other implant-related complications. Ultrasound is a valuable tool in evaluating causes of change in breast shape.

show abstract

The Value of Ultrasound in the Evaluation of the Integrity of Silicone Breast Implants

Cited by 13 publications

References 24 publications

Ultrasonographic Identification of Shell Surface Types in Commercially Available Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implants

Ultrasonographic Identification of Shell Surface Types in Commercially Available Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implants

Current Challenges in Breast Implantation

Anatomical Breast Implant Assessment Using Ultrasound: A Case Series from the International Breast Implant Check Clinic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About