American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 163, 57-60, Copyright © 1994 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Diagnosis of breast implant rupture: imaging findings and relative efficacies of imaging techniques

LI Everson, H Parantainen, T Detlie, AE Stillman, PN Olson, G Landis, MC Foshager, B Cunningham and HJ Griffiths
Department of Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55455.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacies of mammography, sonography, CT, and MR imaging in the detection of breast implant rupture and to analyze the imaging findings. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Thirty-two women with 63 silicone breast implants participated in the study. All but one had signs and symptoms suggestive of rupture, and all had requested that their implants be removed before they were enrolled in this imaging study. All patients had film-screen mammography, sonography, CT, and MR imaging. Twenty-two ruptures were found at surgery; 21 were intracapsular and one was extracapsular. The relative efficacies of the imaging studies were determined, and the imaging findings were compared with the surgical results. RESULTS. Of the 32 women with 63 implants, mammographic sensitivity for detecting implant rupture was only 23% but the specificity was 98%. Sonography had a higher sensitivity (59%), but its specificity was significantly lower (79%). CT had a sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 88%. MR was the only imaging technique that consistently provided evidence that enabled the evaluation of intracapsular and extracapsular ruptures. The sensitivity and specificity of MR imaging were 95% and 93%, respectively. CONCLUSION. Our results show that MR imaging is more sensitive and specific for the detection of breast implant rupture than is mammography, CT, or sonography.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. L. Levine, T. C. Allen, J. Cartwright Jr, and P. T. Cagle Silicone Thorax Due to a Ruptured Breast Implant Chest, May 1, 2005; 127(5): 1854 - 1857. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. R. Holmich, S. Friis, J. P. Fryzek, I. M. Vejborg, C. Conrad, S. Sletting, K. Kjoller, J. K. McLaughlin, and J. H. Olsen Incidence of Silicone Breast Implant Rupture Arch Surg, July 1, 2003; 138(7): 801 - 806. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. A. Berg, T. K. Nguyen, M. S. Middleton, M. S. Soo, G. Pennello, and S. L. Brown MR Imaging of Extracapsular Silicone from Breast Implants: Diagnostic Pitfalls Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2002; 178(2): 465 - 472. [Abstract] [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]