Literature DB >> 15900139

The diagnosis of silicone breast-implant rupture: clinical findings compared with findings at magnetic resonance imaging.

Lisbet Rosenkrantz Hölmich1, Jon P Fryzek, Kim Kjøller, Vibeke Bro Breiting, Anna Jørgensen, Christen Krag, Joseph K McLaughlin.   

Abstract

The objective was to evaluate the usefulness of clinical examination in the evaluation of breast-implant integrity, using the diagnosis at magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the "gold standard." Fifty-five women with 109 implants underwent a breast examination either just before or shortly after an MRI examination. Twenty-four of 109 implants were clinically diagnosed with possible rupture or rupture. Eighteen of the 24 implants were ruptured according to the MRI examination (75%). Eighty-five implants were clinically classified as intact, and 43 of these were actually ruptured at MRI (51%). The sensitivity of the clinical examination for diagnosing rupture was thus 30% and the specificity 88%. The positive predictive value of a clinical diagnosis of rupture was 75%, and the negative predictive value was 49%. In this study, we found that when a clinical examination is used as the sole diagnostic tool to identify implant rupture, neither the sensitivity nor the specificity is acceptable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15900139     DOI: 10.1097/01.sap.0000164470.76432.4f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Plast Surg        ISSN: 0148-7043            Impact factor:   1.539


  16 in total

1.  Role of US in evaluating breast implant integrity.

Authors:  Michele Telegrafo; Marco Moschetta
Journal:  J Ultrasound       Date:  2015-06-23

2.  The PIP scandal: an analysis of the process of quality control that failed to safeguard women from the health risks.

Authors:  Victoria Martindale; Andre Menache
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 3.  How to prevent complications in breast augmentation.

Authors:  Maurizio Bruno Nava; Alberto Rancati; Claudio Angrigiani; Giuseppe Catanuto; Nicola Rocco
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2017-04

4.  MRI screening for silicone breast implant rupture: accuracy, inter- and intraobserver variability using explantation results as reference standard.

Authors:  M C Maijers; F B Niessen; J F H Veldhuizen; M J P F Ritt; R A Manoliu
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-03-06       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  Silicone breast implant rupture: a review.

Authors:  Christopher Hillard; Jason D Fowler; Ruth Barta; Bruce Cunningham
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2017-04

6.  A Surgeon's Empirical Perspectives on Use of High-resolution Ultrasound in Preoperatively Detecting a Rupture in the Context of Breast Implant Crisis in Korea.

Authors:  Bum Sik Bang; Seong Hoon Jung; Eun Kyoung Lee; Jung Youp Sung; Keun Yeong Song; Young Bum Yoo; Dong Wook Park; Jeong Eun Sohn; Jae Hong Kim
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2022-03-16       Impact factor: 2.708

7.  Imaging of breast implants-a pictorial review.

Authors:  Sergi Juanpere; Elsa Perez; Oscar Huc; Naiara Motos; Josep Pont; Salvador Pedraza
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2011-08-07

8.  Soft, Brown Rupture: Clinical Signs and Symptoms Associated with Ruptured PIP Breast Implants.

Authors:  Yvette Godwin; Robert T Duncan; Christine Feig; Michelle Reintals; Sarah Hill
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2014-12-05

9.  Correlation between MRI results and intraoperative findings in patients with silicone breast implants.

Authors:  Nicole Lindenblatt; Karem El-Rabadi; Thomas H Helbich; Heinrich Czembirek; Maria Deutinger; Heike Benditte-Klepetko
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2014-07-30

10.  Long-term safety and effectiveness of style 410 highly cohesive silicone breast implants.

Authors:  Per Hedén; Giorgio Bronz; Jens Jorgen Elberg; Rika Deraemaecker; Diane K Murphy; Araceli Slicton; R James Brenner; Catarina Svarvar; Joost van Tetering; Leo Peter van der Weij
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2009-05-13       Impact factor: 2.326

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.