Literature DB >> 2243855

Mammographic measurements before and after augmentation mammaplasty.

M J Silverstein1, N Handel, P Gamagami, E Waisman, E D Gierson.   

Abstract

Thirty-five augmented women underwent mammography using both the standard implant-compression technique and, when possible, the implant-displacement technique; all had preaugmentation film-screen mammography available for evaluation. The area of mammographically visualized breast tissue before and after augmentation mammaplasty was measured using a transparent grid. Patients with subglandular implants had a mean decrease of 49 percent of measurable tissue area with compression mammography and a 39 percent decrease with displacement mammography. Patients with submuscular implants had a 28 percent decrease in measurable tissue area with compression mammography and a 9 percent decrease with displacement mammography. Anterior breast tissue was seen better with displacement mammography; posterior breast tissue, with compression mammography. Most patients had some degree of parenchymal scarring and lower image quality after augmentation. State-of-the-art mammography was not possible in most patients augmented with silicone-gel-filled implants.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2243855     DOI: 10.1097/00006534-199012000-00014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  8 in total

1.  Comparison of mammographic image quality in various methods of reconstructive breast surgery.

Authors:  F Lindbichler; H Hoflehner; F Schmidt; G R Pierer; J Raith; J Umschaden; K W Preidler
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  New uses of mammary ultrasonography.

Authors:  E Caccialanza; P Magnani; A Segalini; M Canepari
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 2.326

3.  Summary of the report on silicone-gel-filled breast implants. Independent Advisory Committee on Silicone-Gel-filled Breast Implants.

Authors: 
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1992-10-15       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Screening of women with aesthetic prostheses in dedicated sessions of a population-based breast cancer screening programme.

Authors:  Silvia Deandrea; Laura Cavazzana; Niccolò Principi; Ester Luconi; Mauro Campoleoni; Anan Judina Bastiampillai; Lucia Bracchi; Lauro Bucchi; Stella Pedilarco; Antonio Piscitelli; Maria Silvia Sfondrini; Anna Rita Silvestri; Silvana Castaldi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2021-05-05       Impact factor: 3.469

5.  Are All Views with and without Displacement Maneuver Necessary in Augmentation Mammography? Putting Numbers Into Perspective.

Authors:  Lilian Soares Couto; Ruffo Freitas-Junior; Rosangela Silveira Corrêa; Macelo Vilela Lauar; Selma Pace Bauab; Linei Augusta Brolini Dellê Urban; Jorge Luiz Oliveira Cruvinel-Filho; Leonardo Ribeiro Soares; Ricardo Francalacci Savaris
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2022-01-01

6.  Selection of Implants in Unilateral Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction and Contralateral Augmentation.

Authors:  Soo Jung Kim; Seung Yong Song; Dae Hyun Lew; Dong Won Lee
Journal:  Arch Plast Surg       Date:  2017-09-15

7.  The Impact of Implant Location on Breast Cancer Characteristics in Previously Augmented Patients: A Systematic Literature Analysis.

Authors:  Alain Joe Azzi; Jordan Gornitsky; Alex Viezel-Mathieu; Lucie Lessard
Journal:  J Cancer Prev       Date:  2018-06-30

8.  Stage of breast cancer at diagnosis among women with cosmetic breast implants.

Authors:  L R Hölmich; L Mellemkjaer; K A Gunnarsdóttir; U B Tange; C Krag; S Møller; J K McLaughlin; J H Olsen
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2003-03-24       Impact factor: 7.640

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.