American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 159, 973-978, Copyright © 1992 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Screening mammography in 350 women with breast implants: prevalence and findings of implant complications

JM Destouet, BS Monsees, RF Oser, JR Nemecek, VL Young and TK Pilgram
Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, St. Louis, MO 63110-1076.

OBJECTIVE. A series of screening mammograms in asymptomatic women with breast implants was reviewed to determine the prevalence of clinically silent sequelae of breast augmentation and to analyze the mammographic findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The screening mammograms of 350 consecutive women with implants were reviewed retrospectively by experienced mammographers. Any women who reported problems had a diagnostic examination and therefore were not included in our sample. Mammographic features of sequelae specific to implantation such as development of a fibrous capsule, periprosthetic calcification, implant herniation, and silicone leaks were tabulated. Additionally, modified compression (push-back) views, when obtained, were evaluated for their usefulness. RESULTS. Fibrous encapsulation of breast implants was seen in 257 (73%) of 350 women. Periprosthetic calcification was seen in 90 (26%), and 60 women (17%) had implant herniations. Sixteen women (5%) had implant failure as evidenced by silicone leak. Two of these women had bilateral implant failures. Surgical confirmation was attainable in only five of 16 women. Analysis of modified compression views demonstrated an overall improvement in visualization of breast tissue with this technique. Although the sample size is small, there was a significant increase in the amount of breast tissue seen with push-back views in women with submuscular implants. CONCLUSION. Our analysis revealed a wide range of mammographic findings in this group of asymptomatic women with breast augmentation. Especially worrisome is the 5% prevalence of unsuspected silicone extravasation. Additionally, we have demonstrated the usefulness of push-back views in this screening group, especially in women with submuscular implants.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. J. Steiner, R. G. Schwager, and D. J. Lewittes Effects of Breast Augmentation on Accuracy of Mammography JAMA, May 5, 2004; 291(17): 2073 - 2073. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. L. Brown, M. S. Middleton, W. A. Berg, M. S. Soo, and G. Pennello Prevalence of Rupture of Silicone Gel Breast Implants Revealed on MR Imaging in a Population of Women in Birmingham, Alabama Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2000; 175(4): 1057 - 1064. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. I. Caskey, W. A. Berg, U. M. Hamper, S. Sheth, B. W. Chang, and N. D. Anderson Imaging Spectrum of Extracapsular Silicone: Correlation of US, MR Imaging, Mammographic, and Histopathologic Findings RadioGraphics, October 1, 1999; 19(90001): 39 - 51. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				E. P. Goldberg, D. S. Egilman, C. Stubbs, H. R. Barthel, O. Barraza, L. G. Meier, J. Sunshine, M. S. Greenwald, and M. Angell Evaluating the Health Risks of Breast Implants N. Engl. J. Med., October 10, 1996; 335(15): 1154 - 1156. [Full Text]