Radiology
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 Caskey, C. I.
Right arrow Articles by Hamper, U. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Caskey, C. I.
Right arrow Articles by Hamper, U. M.

Radiology, Vol 190, 819-823, Copyright © 1994 by Radiological Society of North America


ARTICLES

Breast implant rupture: diagnosis with US

CI Caskey, WA Berg, ND Anderson, S Sheth, BW Chang and UM Hamper
Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD 21287.

PURPOSE: To characterize sonographic criteria for the detection of implant rupture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred nineteen symptomatic women (221 silicone implants) were evaluated with ultrasound (US) over 11 months to detect implant rupture. Fifty-nine breast prostheses in 31 women were surgically removed. RESULTS: Five sonographic findings associated with rupture were identified: echogenic noise, low-level homogeneous echoes within the implant, echogenic lines coursing within the implant, a contour bulge of the implant, and peri- implant fluid accumulations. The most useful finding in the detection of implant rupture was low-level homogeneous echoes, which were associated with 55% of ruptured implants and 16% of intact implants. This was statistically significant, achieving a 55% sensitivity and 84% specificity for the detection of implant rupture. Nine of 22 ruptured implants (41%) displayed none of the described criteria. CONCLUSION: US may be useful to detect implant rupture; however, a larger prospective study is necessary for adequate evaluation.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
C. I. Caskey, W. A. Berg, U. M. Hamper, S. Sheth, B. W. Chang, and N. D. Anderson
Imaging Spectrum of Extracapsular Silicone: Correlation of US, MR Imaging, Mammographic, and Histopathologic Findings
RadioGraphics, October 1, 1999; 19(90001): 39 - 51.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


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
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1994 by the Radiological Society of North America.