Sonographic signs of breast implant rupture.

OBJECTIVE This study evaluated sonography as a screening test for breast implant rupture and developed diagnostic criteria for implant rupture. SUBJECTS AND METHODS Women contemplating implant removal were evaluated prospectively with sonography. Implants were classified as normal, indeterminate, or ruptured. Individual sonographic signs were analyzed for their statistic association with implant rupture. To measure the degree of interobserver variation, static images were evaluated by two different observers. RESULTS Of 236 implants evaluated, surgical confirmation was available in 78, 22 of which were ruptured and 56, intact. Echogenic noise, multiple discontinuous parallel linear echoes, and echodense aggregates in the implant lumen were statistically associated with rupture. Based on sonographic findings, we classified 34 implants as intact (at surgery: 31 intact, 3 ruptured). We classified 19 as ruptured (at surgery: 11 ruptured, 8 intact). Of the 25 implants we classified as indeterminate, 17 were intact and 8 were ruptured at surgery. Therefore, sonography had a positive predictive value of 58%, a negative predictive value of 91%, a sensitivity of 50%, and a specificity of 55%. Receiver operating characteristic analysis suggests a learning curve effect and no significant interobserver variation. CONCLUSIONS A normal sonographic result is highly predictive of an intact implant. Thus, sonography is useful in evaluating symptomatic women or women concerned about implant rupture. An indeterminate sonographic result suggests the need for further testing.

[1]  L W Bassett,et al.  Silicone breast implants in vivo: MR imaging. , 1992, Radiology.

[2]  P. Herzog.  Silicone granulomas: detection by ultrasonography. , 1989, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

[3]  C E Metz,et al.  Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. , 1989, Investigative radiology.

[4]  K M Harris,et al.  Augmentation mammoplasty: normal and abnormal findings with mammography and US. , 1992, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[5]  Linda Salchenberger,et al.  Using neural networks to aid the diagnosis of breast implant rupture , 1997, Comput. Oper. Res..

[6]  L W Bassett,et al.  Silicone breast implants: US evaluation. , 1993, Radiology.

[7]  K M Harris,et al.  Silicone implant rupture: detection with US. , 1993, Radiology.

[8]  J M Rubin,et al.  Ruptured gel-filled silicone breast implants: sonographic findings in 19 cases. , 1992, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  J W Sayre,et al.  Silicone breast implant ruptures in an animal model: comparison of mammography, MR imaging, US, and CT. , 1994, Radiology.

[10]  Jan J. van Wingerden,et al.  Ultrasound mammography in prosthesis-related breast augmentation complications. , 1988 .

[11]  R. Levine,et al.  Definitive diagnosis of breast implant rupture by ultrasonography. , 1990, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[12]  R. Barlow,et al.  Sonographic demonstration of migrating silicone. , 1980, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  U. Hamper,et al.  Breast implant rupture: diagnosis with US. , 1994, Radiology.

[14]  B B Goldberg,et al.  Ultrasound mammography for the augmented breast. , 1983, Radiology.

[15]  W. Berg,et al.  Rupture of silicone-gel breast implants: causes, sequelae, and diagnosis , 1997, The Lancet.

[16]  Müller Nl,et al.  Ruptured breast implant: computed tomographic and mammographic findings. , 1988 .

[17]  J. Snyder.  Silicone breast implants. Can emerging medical, legal, and scientific concepts be reconciled? , 1997, The Journal of legal medicine.

[18]  J E Kuhlman,et al.  Diagnosing breast implant rupture with MR imaging, US, and mammography. , 1993, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.