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 CME Test (opens in a new window)
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 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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Middleton, M. S.
Right arrow Articles by McNamara, M. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Middleton, M. S.
Right arrow Articles by McNamara, M. P., Jr
Related Collections
Right arrow Breast (Imaging and Interventional)
Right arrow Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Right arrow Mammography
(Radiographics. 2000;20:e1-e1.)
© RSNA, 2000

Online Only

Breast Implant Classification with MR Imaging Correlation1

(CME available on RSNA Link)

Michael S. Middleton, PhD, MD and Michael P. McNamara, Jr, MD

1 From the Department of Radiology, 410 Dickinson St, San Diego, CA 92103-8749 (M.S.M.) and Case Western Reserve University, Breast Imaging Center MetroHealth Medical Center, 2500 MetroHealth Dr, Cleveland, OH 44109-1998 (M.P.M.). Received July 8, 1999; revision requested December 13; revision received and accepted December 21.

Rupture is now recognized as an important and common complication of breast implants. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is the most accurate method for evaluating implant integrity but requires an understanding of the numerous variations in implant construction that are encountered clinically. To assist in diagnosis, the authors provide an MR-oriented breast implant classification scheme based on data from 4,014 patients (>9,966 current or previous implants), the literature, and other primary documentation. This scheme consists of 14 implant types: 1) single-lumen silicone gel-filled, 2) single-lumen gel-saline adjustable, 3) single-lumen saline-, dextran-, or polyvinyl pyrrolodone-filled, 4) standard double-lumen, 5) reverse double-lumen, 6) reverse-adjustable double-lumen, 7) gel-gel double-lumen, 8) triple-lumen, 9) Cavon "cast gel", 10) custom, 11) solid pectus, 12) sponge (simple or compound), 13) sponge (adjustable), and 14) other. The MR imaging and mammographic appearance of many implant types is correlated with their actual appearance after explantation. A brief history of prosthetic breast augmentation and reconstruction is also provided to allow this classification method to be placed in historical perspective. Knowledge of the variety of breast implant types will help reduce misdiagnoses by providing imagers with better understanding of the expected appearances of breast implants. This classification scheme will allow stratification of data for studying incidence, prevalence, and risk factors for and causes of implant failure, as well as permitting better correlation with patient symptoms and surgical outcome.

Index Terms: Breast, MR, 00.121411, 00.121415 • Breast, prostheses, 00.4543, 00.4544 • Silicone






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOGRAPHICS RADIOLOGY RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 2000 by the Radiological Society of North America.