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


     

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
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
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Caskey, C. I.
Right arrow Articles by Anderson, N. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Caskey, C. I.
Right arrow Articles by Anderson, N. D.
Related Collections
Right arrow Breast (Imaging and Interventional)
Right arrow Mammography
(Radiographics. 1999;19:S39-S51.)
© RSNA, 1999

BREAST IMAGING

Imaging Spectrum of Extracapsular Silicone: Correlation of US, MR Imaging, Mammographic, and Histopathologic Findings1

Cynthia I. Caskey, MD, Wendie A. Berg, MD, PhD, Ulrike M. Hamper, MD, Sheila Sheth, MD, Bernard W. Chang, MD and Norman D. Anderson, MD

1 From the Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences (C.I.C., W.A.B., U.M.H., S.S.), Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (B.W.C.), and Department of Internal Medicine (N.D.A.), Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md; and the Department of Radiology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore (W.A.B.). Presented as a scientific exhibit at the 1998 RSNA scientific assembly. Received February 15, 1999; revision requested April 5 and received April 26; accepted April 28. Address reprint requests to C.I.C., Department of Radiology, University of Texas, Lyndon B. Johnson General Hospital, 5656 Kelley St, Houston, TX 77026.

The appearance of free silicone at mammography, ultrasonography (US), and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is variable. The classic appearance is dense areas of opacity on mammograms, a highly echogenic pattern with or without hypoechoic masses on US images, and foci of low signal intensity on fat-suppressed T1-weighted MR images or high signal intensity on water-suppressed T2-weighted MR images. Mammography is a reliable, cost-effective, and readily available means of demonstrating silicone. The major disadvantage of US is that its accuracy depends on the capability of the operator to recognize the abnormality. Although MR imaging outperforms US or mammography in detection of implant rupture, it is not clear that MR imaging is superior in detection of free or residual silicone. The sequelae of noncontained silicone include granuloma formation, fibrosis, and migration. After extrusion from an implant, silicone migrates primarily to local sites, such as the ipsilateral chest wall and axillary nodes. Migration of silicone into the axilla can involve the brachial plexus, resulting in neuropathy. Silicone can also migrate into more distal regions, including the arm and subcutaneous tissues of the abdominal wall. Whatever the source, silicone in breast tissue interferes with the interpretation of mammographic findings.

Index Terms: Breast, MR, 00.121415 • Breast, prostheses, 00.454 • Breast, US, 00.1298 • Silicone, 00.454






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOGRAPHICS RADIOLOGY RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1999 by the Radiological Society of North America.