RadioGraphics
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Berg, W. A.
Right arrow Articles by Kuhlman, J. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Berg, W. A.
Right arrow Articles by Kuhlman, J. E.

RadioGraphics, Vol 13, 1323-1336, Copyright © 1993 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Diagnosing breast implant rupture with MR imaging, US, and mammography

WA Berg, CI Caskey, UM Hamper, ND Anderson, BW Chang, S Sheth, EA Zerhouni and JE Kuhlman
Russell P. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Services, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD 21287.

A total of 135 symptomatic women with 262 breast implants were examined with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging performed with a body coil, ultrasound (US), or both to determine imaging features of implant rupture. Surgical proof was available for 33 women with 62 implants; 24 were ruptured and 38 were intact. Complicated internal structure was the most reliable predictor of implant rupture: Diffuse low-level echoes were seen on sonograms in 56% of ruptured implants; internal membranes (which correspond to the collapsed implant shell) were seen on MR images in 58% of ruptured implants. Fluid droplets were seen within the silicone in 26% of ruptured implants on MR images. Irregular implant contour can be a sign of rupture but is unreliable. Fluid collections around silicone implants are not a sign of rupture. At present, neither US nor conventional MR imaging with a body coil is sufficiently reliable to advocate routine screening of asymptomatic women with breast implants. Evaluation with MR imaging performed with a surface coil is more reliable.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
W. A. Berg, T. K. Nguyen, M. S. Middleton, M. S. Soo, G. Pennello, and S. L. Brown
MR Imaging of Extracapsular Silicone from Breast Implants: Diagnostic Pitfalls
Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2002; 178(2): 465 - 472.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
M. S. Middleton and M. P. McNamara Jr
Breast Implant Classification with MR Imaging Correlation
RadioGraphics, May 1, 2000; 20(3): e1 - e1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Diagnostic Medical SonographyHome page
S. Lu, G. A. Rouse, and M. De Lange
Sonoographic Detection of Silicone Breast Implant Rupture
Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography, January 1, 1995; 11(1): 3 - 8.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOGRAPHICS RADIOLOGY RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1993 by the Radiological Society of North America.