Literature DB >> 10835136

Breast implant classification with MR imaging correlation: (CME available on RSNA link)

.   

Abstract

Rupture is now recognized as an important and common complication of breast implants. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is the most accurate method for evaluating implant integrity but requires an understanding of the numerous variations in implant construction that are encountered clinically. To assist in diagnosis, the authors provide an MR-oriented breast implant classification scheme based on data from 4,014 patients (>9,966 current or previous implants), the literature, and other primary documentation. This scheme consists of 14 implant types: 1) single-lumen silicone gel-filled, 2) single-lumen gel-saline adjustable, 3) single-lumen saline-, dextran-, or polyvinyl pyrrolodone-filled, 4) standard double-lumen, 5) reverse double-lumen, 6) reverse-adjustable double-lumen, 7) gel-gel double-lumen, 8) triple-lumen, 9) Cavon "cast gel", 10) custom, 11) solid pectus, 12) sponge (simple or compound), 13) sponge (adjustable), and 14) other. The MR imaging and mammographic appearance of many implant types is correlated with their actual appearance after explantation. A brief history of prosthetic breast augmentation and reconstruction is also provided to allow this classification method to be placed in historical perspective. Knowledge of the variety of breast implant types will help reduce misdiagnoses by providing imagers with better understanding of the expected appearances of breast implants. This classification scheme will allow stratification of data for studying incidence, prevalence, and risk factors for and causes of implant failure, as well as permitting better correlation with patient symptoms and surgical outcome.

Entities:  

Year:  2000        PMID: 10835136     DOI: 10.1148/radiographics.20.3.g00mae11

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiographics        ISSN: 0271-5333            Impact factor:   5.333


  6 in total

1.  Indications for breast magnetic resonance imaging. Consensus document "Attualità in senologia", Florence 2007.

Authors:  F Sardanelli; G M Giuseppetti; G Canavese; L Cataliotti; S Corcione; E Cossu; M Federico; L Marotti; L Martincich; P Panizza; F Podo; M Rosselli Del Turco; C Zuiani; C Alfano; M Bazzocchi; P Belli; S Bianchi; A Cilotti; M Calabrese; L Carbonaro; L Cortesi; C Di Maggio; A Del Maschio; A Esseridou; A Fausto; M Gennaro; R Girometti; R Ienzi; A Luini; S Manoukian; S Morassutt; D Morrone; J Nori; A Orlacchio; F Pane; P Panzarola; R Ponzone; G Simonetti; P Torricelli; G Valeri
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2008-10-16       Impact factor: 3.469

2.  Incidence of Internal Mammary Lymph Nodes with Silicone Breast Implants at MR Imaging after Oncoplastic Surgery.

Authors:  Elizabeth J Sutton; Elizabeth J Watson; Girard Gibbons; Debra A Goldman; Chaya S Moskowitz; Maxine S Jochelson; D David Dershaw; Elizabeth A Morris
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-06-18       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Contralateral intramammary silicone lymphadenitis in a patient with an intact standard dual-lumen breast implant in the opposite reconstructed breast.

Authors:  Fernando Collado-Mesa; Monica Yepes; Purvi Doshi; Saleem A Umar; Jose Net
Journal:  J Radiol Case Rep       Date:  2013-11-01

Review 4.  Magnetic resonance imaging of breast augmentation: a pictorial review.

Authors:  Ting Wong; Lai Wan Lo; Po Yan Eliza Fung; Hiu Yan Miranda Lai; Hoi Lam Helen She; Wing Kei Carol Ng; King Ming Kimmy Kwok; Chiu Man Lee
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2016-03-09

Review 5.  History of breast implants: Back to the future.

Authors:  Fabio Santanelli di Pompeo; Guido Paolini; Guido Firmani; Michail Sorotos
Journal:  JPRAS Open       Date:  2022-03-11

6.  MRI for breast cancer: Current indications.

Authors:  Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Christopher E Comstock
Journal:  Indian J Radiol Imaging       Date:  2009 Apr-Jun
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.