Bum Sik Bang1, Seong Hoon Jung2, Eun Kyoung Lee3, Jung Youp Sung4, Keun Yeong Song5, Young Bum Yoo6, Dong Wook Park7, Jeong Eun Sohn2, Jae Hong Kim8. 1. Yang Hospital, Namyangju-si, Gyeonggi, Korea. 2. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain medicine, Cheju Halla General Hospital, Jeju, Korea. 3. Vievis NAMUH Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 4. BBC Plastic Surgery Clinic, Changwon, Korea. 5. Department of Breast Surgery, Gwangju Suwan Hospital, Gwangju, Korea. 6. Department of Surgery, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 7. Venus Women's Clinic, Seoul, Korea. 8. The W Clinic, 9F Kukdong B/D, 596 Gangnam-daero, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06626, Korea. stenka@hanmail.net.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We previously proposed a novel method for detecting a rupture of a breast implant using high-resolution ultrasound (HRUS). We therefore conducted this retrospective, observational study to describe its feasibility in making a preoperative diagnosis of rupture of the device in patients receiving an implant-based augmentation mammaplasty. METHODS: We initially evaluated the medical records of the patients who had received primary or secondary augmentation mammaplasty using a breast implant at other hospitals for aesthetic or reconstructive purposes between August 31, 2017, and August 31, 2020. The patients underwent breast US using the Aplio i600 (Canon Medical System, Otawara, Tochigi, Japan) system with a 7-18 MHz linear transducer. Through a retrospective review of the patients' medical records, we analyzed their baseline and clinical characteristics. Then, we compared an agreement between preoperative diagnosis of rupture on HRUS and findings at reoperation. RESULTS: A total of 29 patients with rupture (55 breasts) were evaluated for the performance of ultrasound in making a diagnosis of rupture. This showed that they were unaware of rupture but they were diagnosed with it on ultrasound. Preoperatively, there were no cases of rupture in 110 left breasts (80.9%) and 107 right breasts (78.7%), which exactly matched to the number of breasts without rupture on HRUS. Moreover, preoperatively, there were 26 (19.1%) and 29 cases (21.3%) of rupture in the left and right breast, respectively, which exactly matched to the number of breasts with rupture on HRUS. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, patients who are suspected of having rupture of a breast implant should be stringently evaluated for presence of rupture and, if any, its scope using HRUS. Moreover, we propose that surgeons consider using HRUS in making a preoperative diagnosis of rupture of a breast implant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
BACKGROUND: We previously proposed a novel method for detecting a rupture of a breast implant using high-resolution ultrasound (HRUS). We therefore conducted this retrospective, observational study to describe its feasibility in making a preoperative diagnosis of rupture of the device in patients receiving an implant-based augmentation mammaplasty. METHODS: We initially evaluated the medical records of the patients who had received primary or secondary augmentation mammaplasty using a breast implant at other hospitals for aesthetic or reconstructive purposes between August 31, 2017, and August 31, 2020. The patients underwent breast US using the Aplio i600 (Canon Medical System, Otawara, Tochigi, Japan) system with a 7-18 MHz linear transducer. Through a retrospective review of the patients' medical records, we analyzed their baseline and clinical characteristics. Then, we compared an agreement between preoperative diagnosis of rupture on HRUS and findings at reoperation. RESULTS: A total of 29 patients with rupture (55 breasts) were evaluated for the performance of ultrasound in making a diagnosis of rupture. This showed that they were unaware of rupture but they were diagnosed with it on ultrasound. Preoperatively, there were no cases of rupture in 110 left breasts (80.9%) and 107 right breasts (78.7%), which exactly matched to the number of breasts without rupture on HRUS. Moreover, preoperatively, there were 26 (19.1%) and 29 cases (21.3%) of rupture in the left and right breast, respectively, which exactly matched to the number of breasts with rupture on HRUS. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, patients who are suspected of having rupture of a breast implant should be stringently evaluated for presence of rupture and, if any, its scope using HRUS. Moreover, we propose that surgeons consider using HRUS in making a preoperative diagnosis of rupture of a breast implant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Authors: Giovanni Di Benedetto; Sara Cecchini; Luca Grassetti; Silvia Baldassarre; Gianluca Valeri; Luca Leva; Gian Marco Giuseppetti; Aldo Bertani Journal: Breast J Date: 2008 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: D M Ikeda; H B Borofsky; R J Herfkens; A M Sawyer-Glover; R L Birdwell; G H Glover Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 4.730