AJR Women's Imaging Online
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Venta, L. A.
Right arrow Articles by Angelats, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Venta, L. A.
Right arrow Articles by Angelats, J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 166, 1413-1419, Copyright © 1996 by American Roentgen Ray Society


ARTICLES

Sonographic signs of breast implant rupture

LA Venta, CG Salomon, ME Flisak, ER Venta, R Izquierdo and J Angelats
Department of Radiology, Northwestern University Medical School, Prentice Women's Hospital, Chicago, IL 60611-3095, USA.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated sonography as a screening test for breast implant rupture and developed diagnostic criteria for implant rupture. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Women contemplating implant removal were evaluated prospectively with sonography. Implants were classified as normal, indeterminate, or ruptured. Individual sonographic signs were analyzed for their statistic association with implant rupture. To measure the degree of interobserver variation, static images were evaluated by two different observers. RESULTS: Of 236 implants evaluated, surgical confirmation was available in 78, 22 of which were ruptured and 56, intact. Echogenic noise, multiple discontinuous parallel linear echoes, and echodense aggregates in the implant lumen were statistically associated with rupture. Based on sonographic findings, we classified 34 implants as intact (at surgery: 31 intact, 3 ruptured). We classified 19 as ruptured (at surgery: 11 ruptured, 8 intact). Of the 25 implants we classified as indeterminate, 17 were intact and 8 were ruptured at surgery. Therefore, sonography had a positive predictive value of 58%, a negative predictive value of 91%, a sensitivity of 50%, and a specificity of 55%. Receiver operating characteristic analysis suggests a learning curve effect and no significant interobserver variation. CONCLUSIONS: A normal sonographic result is highly predictive of an intact implant. Thus, sonography is useful in evaluating symptomatic women or women concerned about implant rupture. An indeterminate sonographic result suggests the need for further testing.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1996 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.