We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Observational Study
Accuracy of mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance imaging for detecting silicone breast implant ruptures: A retrospective observational study of 367 cases.
Annales de Chirurgie Plastique et Esthétique 2021 Februrary
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound and mammography in detecting breast implant rupture.
METHODS: This retrospective study included all cases of breast implant revision. Implant integrity was determined preoperatively by magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound and mammography. The primary study endpoint was the surgical finding. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value and positive and negative likelihood ratio of the tests were evaluated.
RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-four (234) patients were included; 213 mammographies, 295 ultrasounds and 160 magnetic resonance imagings were carried out. While 114 clinical ruptures were confirmed, 253 implants remained intact. Magnetic resonance imaging was the most sensitive (99%); outperforming mammography (sensitivity: 70%). Mammography was the most accurate in diagnosis of intact implant (specificity: 93%), and magnetic resonance imaging was second (specificity: 78%). Ultrasound was rated intermediately. Positive mammography signifies a rupture in 84% of cases, whereas magnetic resonance imaging (positive predictive value: 78%) can be mistaken in 20% of cases. Negative ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging rule out a rupture (negative predictive value of 93% and 99% respectively). Mammography and ultrasound are more accurate than magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing implant rupture (positive likelihood ratios of 9.78, 8.24 and 4.44 respectively). Magnetic resonance imaging provides convincing affirmation of implant integrity (negative likelihood ratio: 0.02).
CONCLUSION: Ultrasound seems to be the most reliable imaging method for patients younger than 50 years. In cases where doubt exists, mammography ensures supplementary assessment. In patients over 50 years of age, mammography and ultrasound should be carried out immediately. If necessary, magnetic resonance imaging rules out a hypothesized rupture.
METHODS: This retrospective study included all cases of breast implant revision. Implant integrity was determined preoperatively by magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound and mammography. The primary study endpoint was the surgical finding. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value and positive and negative likelihood ratio of the tests were evaluated.
RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-four (234) patients were included; 213 mammographies, 295 ultrasounds and 160 magnetic resonance imagings were carried out. While 114 clinical ruptures were confirmed, 253 implants remained intact. Magnetic resonance imaging was the most sensitive (99%); outperforming mammography (sensitivity: 70%). Mammography was the most accurate in diagnosis of intact implant (specificity: 93%), and magnetic resonance imaging was second (specificity: 78%). Ultrasound was rated intermediately. Positive mammography signifies a rupture in 84% of cases, whereas magnetic resonance imaging (positive predictive value: 78%) can be mistaken in 20% of cases. Negative ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging rule out a rupture (negative predictive value of 93% and 99% respectively). Mammography and ultrasound are more accurate than magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing implant rupture (positive likelihood ratios of 9.78, 8.24 and 4.44 respectively). Magnetic resonance imaging provides convincing affirmation of implant integrity (negative likelihood ratio: 0.02).
CONCLUSION: Ultrasound seems to be the most reliable imaging method for patients younger than 50 years. In cases where doubt exists, mammography ensures supplementary assessment. In patients over 50 years of age, mammography and ultrasound should be carried out immediately. If necessary, magnetic resonance imaging rules out a hypothesized rupture.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Prevention and treatment of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in people with diabetes mellitus: a focus on glucose control and comorbidities.Diabetologia 2024 April 17
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Clinical Pearls for Primary Care Providers and Gastroenterologists.Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2024 April
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app