Prosthetic breast implant rupture: imaging--pictorial essay

A Surgeon's Empirical Perspectives on Use of High-resolution Ultrasound in Preoperatively Detecting a Rupture in the Context of Breast Implant Crisis in Korea

BACKGROUND

We previously proposed a novel method for detecting a rupture of a breast implant using high-resolution ultrasound (HRUS). We therefore conducted this retrospective, observational study to describe its feasibility in making a preoperative diagnosis of rupture of the device in patients receiving an implant-based augmentation mammaplasty.

METHODS

We initially evaluated the medical records of the patients who had received primary or secondary augmentation mammaplasty using a breast implant at other hospitals for aesthetic or reconstructive purposes between August 31, 2017, and August 31, 2020. The patients underwent breast US using the Aplio i600 (Canon Medical System, Otawara, Tochigi, Japan) system with a 7-18 MHz linear transducer. Through a retrospective review of the patients' medical records, we analyzed their baseline and clinical characteristics. Then, we compared an agreement between preoperative diagnosis of rupture on HRUS and findings at reoperation.

RESULTS

A total of 29 patients with rupture (55 breasts) were evaluated for the performance of ultrasound in making a diagnosis of rupture. This showed that they were unaware of rupture but they were diagnosed with it on ultrasound. Preoperatively, there were no cases of rupture in 110 left breasts (80.9%) and 107 right breasts (78.7%), which exactly matched to the number of breasts without rupture on HRUS. Moreover, preoperatively, there were 26 (19.1%) and 29 cases (21.3%) of rupture in the left and right breast, respectively, which exactly matched to the number of breasts with rupture on HRUS.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, patients who are suspected of having rupture of a breast implant should be stringently evaluated for presence of rupture and, if any, its scope using HRUS. Moreover, we propose that surgeons consider using HRUS in making a preoperative diagnosis of rupture of a breast implant.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Internal mammary lymph node siliconoma in absence of prosthesis rupture: a case series that raises concern for potential risk of overdiagnosis

Background

Silicon migration after rupture is an adverse event of breast implant, whose risk increases with the aging of prosthesis. The exact prevalence of this complication remains unclear and reported data are inconsistent. In addition, microscopic diffusion of silicone gel through intact implant, known as gel bleeding, might verify thus complicating diagnosis. Although high cohesive gel has reduced the occurrence of gel bleeding, this phenomenon is still possible and its occurrence rate remains underestimated. If silicon droplets migrate in locoregional lymph node, a swelling that mimics recurrence can arise. Therefore, a risk of overdiagnosis is possible when clinicians rely only on imaging techniques. The aim of this study is to evaluate the actual prevalence of metastasis in internal mammary lymph node (IMLN) in presence of PET positive uptake and no prosthesis rupture.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated our patient's records and selected those with intact breast implants and suspected relapse in IMLN that underwent biopsy, either surgical or imaging guided. All patients performed PET/CT scan showing pathological uptake in IMLNs. A breast magnetic resonance (MRI) or ultrasound (US) imaging confirmed a suspicious adenopathy and excluded prosthesis rupture. From 2015 to 2019 a total of nine patients underwent biopsy of the IMLN and only six of them met inclusion criteria.

Results

Four biopsies were CT-guided, two were surgical. Three patients (50%) were diagnosed with breast cancer relapse while two (33.3%) were found with siliconoma and one (16.7%) was inflammatory.

Conclusions

Siliconoma can occur even without evidence of capsule rupture, challenging the clinicians and leading to a risk of relapse over diagnosis. Echographic, MRI and nuclear medicine imaging criteria may be not sufficient in differential diagnosis. To overcome the issue, we suggest introducing into the clinical practice the biopsy of suspicious enlarged IMLN with minimally invasive technique.

Breast Implants: A Historical Review With Implications for Diagnosis and Modern Surgical Planning

ABSTRACT

Modern breast surgery was first introduced in the United States in 1962 with the use of silicone gel-filled breast implants. Over the past 6 decades, development of breast implants has been challenged by a variety of influencers including aesthetic appeal in shape, texture, and material; challenges in managing outcomes such as contracture, disease, and rupture; and public perception of risks associated with implants. In 1992, silicone breast prostheses were banned by the US Food and Drug Administration with exception for use in breast reconstruction, congenital deformities, or to replace existing implants.The ban led to heightened concerns about implants and possible disease manifestations. Knowledge of the historical evolution of breast prostheses is useful for understanding the associated risks and outcomes unique to each breast implant era. This article aimed to explore characteristics of breast implants by generation, with implications for diagnosis and assistance to modern surgical planning for novice plastic surgeons.

Silicone-induced lymphadenopathy mimicking recurrence of breast cancer on positron emission tomography-computed tomography, correctly diagnosed on ultrasound

Silicone-induced lymphadenopathy is a rare complication associated with silicone breast implants. It is usually asymptomatic and found incidentally during imaging. We report a case of silicone lymphadenopathy in a patient who had undergone a mastectomy and breast reconstruction for breast cancer. During follow-up, a positron emission tomography-computed tomography examination revealed lymph nodes that were suspicious for cancer recurrence. However, sonography was able to correctly diagnose silicone-induced lymphadenopathy and exclude cancer metastasis.

Thoracic migration of silicone gel after breast implant rupture: a case report and literature review

Nowadays silicone is a widespread material for medical devices. In particular, it is commonly used for implants manufacturing, for that patients undergoing breast augmentation or breast reconstruction after mastectomy. However, the use of silicone implants is not free from risks. Ruptures of silicone breast implants are uncommon, in general post-traumatic or iatrogenic, and usually related to implant’s wall weakness of unknown origin but probably due to biochemical reactions that cause wall rupture. As a consequence of a rupture, silicone gel from damaged implants may have a continuity migration to the chest wall, axillae, and upper extremities, resulting in granulomatous inflammation or siliconoma, or a lymphatic migration to axillary lymph nodes. In this regard, silicone thoracic migration is extremely rare, and nowadays a leakage is unlikely to happen with more modern cohesive silicone gel implants. Nevertheless, procedures such as thoracic surgery and thoracotomies may be responsible for accidental breast implant rupture, capsular discontinuity, and eventually intrathoracic silicone migration, especially when dealing with older generations of breast implants. We report a rare case of a 75-year-old woman presenting with pleural silicone effusion, 18 years after a right breast reconstruction for breast cancer, followed by right upper lobe resection for a lung carcinoma. A combination of muscular flap and DTI pre-pectoral breast reconstruction with biological membrane (ADM) has been used for treatment. Literature was reviewed for cases of breast implants free silicone localization in the chest cavity, focusing on previous surgeries, anamnestic relevances, and surgical management.

Level of Evidence: Level V, risk/prognostic study.

Is breast ultrasound a good alternative to magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating implant integrity?

OBJECTIVE

To compare the diagnostic performance of breast ultrasound and breast magnetic resonance imaging and to correlate the findings on the two techniques that are suggestive of implant rupture.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We reviewed the images and reports of breast ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging studies done in our diagnostic and interventional breast imaging unit to evaluate breast implants in 205 patients between January 2015 and December 2017.

RESULTS

Ultrasound findings were compatible with implant rupture in 87 (42.4%) patients: intracapsular rupture in 44 (21.5%) and intracapsular and extracapsular rupture in 43 (21.0%). Ultrasound yielded 85.2% sensitivity, 89.7% specificity, 86.2% positive predictive value, and 89.0% negative predictive value. Magnetic resonance imaging findings were compatible with implant rupture in 88 (42.9%) patients: intracapsular rupture in 50 (24.4%) and intracapsular and extracapsular rupture in 38 (18.5%). The correlation between positive findings for the location of the rupture on the two imaging techniques was excellent (0.77; p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

We found high concordance between the two techniques for the detection of intracapsular and extracapsular implant rupture. These results consolidate the use of ultrasound as the first-line imaging technique to evaluate implant integrity in our population; magnetic resonance imaging can be reserved for cases in which the ultrasound diagnosis of implant integrity is uncertain.

Safe autologous rib harvest in patients with breast implants; technique and review

INTRODUCTION

Autologous rib harvest is a useful technique for rhinoplasty when septal cartilage is inadequate. For patients who have previously undergone augmentation mammoplasty, however, there is theoretical concern about the risk to breast implant integrity during costal cartilage harvest. The true risk to patients and their implants from autologous rib harvest is poorly studied. Herein, we review our technique and experience with autologous rib harvest after augmentation mammoplasty.

METHOD

We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent autologous rib harvest after augmentation mammoplasty between February 1998 and February 2017 at a tertiary care hospital and private practice. We identified basic demographics, implant type, approach to implantation, and any post-operative complications following rib harvest. Surgery was performed using an inframammary approach with a boat-technique for cartilage harvest.

RESULTS

A total of 109 individuals, aged 19-64, were included in our study. There was a 2% rate of post-operative seroma development; no patients developed long-term complications. There was a 5% rate of incidental intraoperative discovery of implant dehiscence or implant entry, all of which were repaired primarily at the time of surgery, and none of which developed post-operative sequelae. There were no cases of pneumothorax, post-operative breast malposition, or other major complications.

CONCLUSION

Herein, we present the largest cohort of patients to undergo autologous rib harvest after augmentation mammoplasty. Routine intra-operative drain placement and perioperative imaging is unnecessary. Our technique allows harvest of a suitable amount of cartilage, is very cosmetically acceptable to this cosmetically-conscious population, and is safe for patients and their implants.

RE: Prosthetic Breast Implant Rupture: Imaging-Pictorial Essay : Full Cooperation Between Surgeon and Radiologist: "The Best of Both Worlds"

Cooperation between plastic surgeons and radiologists is fundamental when breast prosthesis rupture is suspected. We describe our experience managing the case of suspected implant rupture in a patient that underwent CT scan imaging for thoracic pain. Poor clinical information given to radiologists leads to wrong diagnosis: during surgery, both prostheses were checked revealing no signs of rupture. Full communication among different specialists involved in the multidisciplinary approach is always recommended, and an easy-to-use national breast implant register would allow a better management of patients' follow-up and eventual preoperative planning. Level of evidence V This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Efficacy of ultrasound, mammography and magnetic resonance imaging in detecting breast implant rupture: A retrospective study of 175 reconstructive and aesthetic sub-pectoral breast augmentation cases

To date, the effectiveness of radiological imaging in detecting silicone breast implant rupture is uncertain. The purpose of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the effectiveness of radiological imaging when diagnosing a rupture. In this study, 175 patients with 242 breast implants were included, of which 168 and 74 implants were used for breast reconstruction and aesthetic augmentation, respectively. All patients who underwent revision surgery, between January 2015 and June 2016, following breast augmentation or reconstruction were included, regardless of any pre-operative diagnosis of rupture that had been made. The diagnosis of intracapsular rupture was verified intraoperatively and compared to the pre-operative findings. With regard to pre-operative diagnostic imaging methods, we compared magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), mammography, and ultrasonography (US) findings. Among the 242 implants that were explanted, 35 clinical ruptures were confirmed and compared with the related radiological findings. We reported 22 false positives and 15 false negatives. US was the least specific and least accurate method because of its lowest positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). Mammography was the most specific and most accurate method, with the highest PPV (96%). Surprisingly, MRI was the most sensitive; however, it was neither the most specific nor the most accurate method despite having the highest NPV (98%). After comparing these three radiological techniques, we conclude that US along with MRI can be useful for young patients. Mammography, which was characterised by high specificity and accuracy, could be useful along with MRI in investigating patients over the age of 40.

Analysis of 109 Consecutive Explanted Breast Implants: Correlation Between Suspected Implant Rupture and Surgical Findings

INTRODUCTION

The use of breast implants is on the rise due to increases in breast reconstructive and aesthetic surgery. Implant rupture is a possible complication. Among assessment modalities for implant rupture detection, MRI is considered the gold standard.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective analysis of 57 women after breast augmentation or postmastectomy reconstruction (109 implants), admitted to our department between 2010 and 2015 due to suspected implant rupture. We correlated surgical findings with symptoms, physical examination, imaging, and device specifications.

RESULTS

Seventy-four explanted implants were preoperatively suspected as ruptured. Over a third were intact and unjustifiably explanted. MRI evaluation was the most accurate modality. Interestingly, 61 % of ruptured implants were left-sided. Patient's age, comorbidities, smoking, medications, presenting symptoms, implant duration, and volume did not correlate with implant rupture.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirmed preexisting data regarding the importance of imaging diagnosis, with MRI being the most accurate modality in both diagnosing and ruling out implant rupture. Interestingly, our study showed that MRI was accurate in detecting all intact implants, unlike lower detection rates reported in previous studies, thus preventing unnecessary explantation. Another unique finding was that the left-sided implants were significantly prone for rupture. As iatrogenic damage is the most common cause of implant rupture, with most surgeons being right-handed, awareness during surgery must be augmented, with further investigation required for potential causes of this unexpected difference. Our study emphasizes the importance of understanding the causes of rupture and the need for evidence-based indications regarding imaging and replacement of implants.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Magnetic resonance imaging of breast augmentation: a pictorial review

Abstract

The increasing prevalence of breast augmentation presents new challenges in breast imaging interpretation. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recognized as the gold standard for the evaluation of augmented breasts. This article reviews the MRI features of different breast augmentation techniques, their associated complications, and the role of MRI in the assessment of concurrent breast abnormalities.

Teaching Points

• MRI has the highest sensitivity and specificity for implant rupture detection.

• MRI is able to discriminate the nature of implanted prosthesis or injected materials.

• Sensitivity of cancer detection by MRI is not reduced through implants.

Role of US in evaluating breast implant integrity

PURPOSE

To assess the diagnostic accuracy and inter-observer variability of ultrasound (US) in recognizing signs of intra or extra-capsular rupture of silicone breast implants by using the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings as the reference standard.

METHODS

150 patients for a total of 300 implants underwent breast US and subsequently MR examination searching for signs of intra or extra-capsular rupture. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy were calculated for breast US having MRI findings as the reference standard. Cohen's kappa statistics was used in order to assess inter-observer agreement for US.

RESULTS

170/300 (57 %) implant ruptures were detected at US (intra-capsular n = 110, extra-capsular n = 60). By comparing US findings with MR results, overall sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV of 79, 63, 70, 65, and 77 %, respectively, were found for breast US. In case of intra-capsular rupture, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV of 63, 63, 63, 45, and 77 %, respectively, were obtained; 100 % values were found for extra-capsular rupture US diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

US can be used as the first examination in patients with breast implants. US intra-capsular rupture detection requires further evaluation by MRI; in case of extra-capsular rupture US diagnosis, surgical implant removal could be proposed without further investigations.

Update on imaging of the postsurgical breast

Oncologic, reconstructive, and cosmetic breast surgery has evolved in the last 20 years. Familiarity with cutting-edge surgical techniques and their imaging characteristics is essential for radiologic interpretation and may help avert false-positive imaging findings. Novel surgical techniques include skin- and nipple-sparing mastectomies, autologous free flaps, autologous fat grafting, and nipple-areola-complex breast reconstruction. These techniques are illustrated and compared with conventional surgical techniques, including modified radical mastectomy and autologous pedicled flaps. The role of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in surgical planning, evaluation for complications, and postsurgical cancer detection is described. Breast reconstruction and augmentation using silicone gel-filled implants is discussed in light of the Food and Drug Administration's recommendation for MR imaging screening for "silent" implant rupture 3 years after implantation and every 2 years thereafter. Recent developments in skin incision techniques for reduction mammoplasty are presented. The effects of postsurgical changes on the detection of breast cancer are discussed by type of surgery.

Imaging of breast implants-a pictorial review

The number of women with breast implants is increasing. Radiologists must be familiar with the normal and abnormal findings of common implants. Implant rupture is a well-known complication after surgery and is the main cause of implant removal. Although mammography and ultrasonography are the standard first steps in the diagnostic workup, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most useful imaging modality for the characterisation of breast implants because of its high spatial resolution and contrast between implants and soft tissues and absence of ionising radiation. MRI has the highest sensitivity and specificity for implant rupture, thanks to its sequences that can suppress or emphasise the signal from silicone. Regardless of the technique used, the overall aim of imaging breast implants is to provide essential information about tissue and prosthesis integrity, detect implant abnormalities and detect breast diseases unrelated to implants, such as breast cancer.