The Diagnosis of Silicone Breast Implant Rupture:

Application of High-Frequency Ultrasound to Evaluate Forehead Filling Materials

BACKGROUND

In recent years, soft tissue materials have been applied as forehead fillers. Some filling materials need to be removed or refilled in a timely manner in certain situations; therefore, it is important to develop a method to identify the location and type of filling materials. This study summarizes the imaging findings of different filling materials under high-frequency ultrasound, providing a reference for clinical treatment.

METHODS

We screened facial ultrasound images performed at the Plastic Surgery Hospital of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences from April 2015 to July 2023 and classified and summarized the types of frontal filling materials and their imaging results.

RESULTS

This study included ultrasound imaging results from 114 patients, including 39 with hyaluronic acid (HA) filling, 45 with polyacrylamide hydrogel (PAG) filling, 14 who received autologous fat transplantation, 2 who received prosthesis implantation, 2 who received both HA and PAG filling, and 12 who received silicone oil filling. HA mainly manifests as an anechoic zone on ultrasonography, with images divisible into four types. PAG primarily presents as fine punctate echoes, divisible into five types. Fat transplantation presents as a low-echo area with uneven density, divisible into five types. Finally, the silicone oil-filling material appears as a cloud-like high echo on the forehead, visible throughout the entire skin layer, and unclear imaging in deep tissues.

CONCLUSION

High-frequency ultrasound is a safe and reliable method to evaluate the type and position of forehead filling materials, which can be easily applied in clinical practice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

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 .

Exploration of Point-of-Care Ultrasonography for Silicone Breast Implant Rupture Detection and Classification

Background and Objectives: The surge in breast-related surgeries in Korea underscores the critical need for an accurate early diagnosis of silicone breast implant-related issues. Complications such as BIA-ALCL and BIA-SCC add complexity to breast health concerns, necessitating vigilant monitoring. Despite advancements, discrepancies persist between ultrasonographic and pathologic classifications of silicone implant ruptures, highlighting a need for enhanced diagnostic tools. This study explores the reliability of ultrasonography in diagnosing silicone breast implant ruptures and determining the extent of silicone migration, specifically with a focus on guiding potential capsulectomy based on pathology. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive review of medical records encompassing 5557 breast implants across 2790 patients who underwent ultrasound-assisted examinations was conducted. Among the screened implants, 8.9% (249 cases) were diagnosed with silicone breast implant rupture through ultrasonography. Subsequently, 89 women underwent revisional surgery, involving capsulectomy. The pathological analysis of 111 periprosthetic capsules from these cases aimed to assess the extent of silicone migration, and the findings were juxtaposed with the existing ultrasonographic rupture classification. Results: The diagnostic agreement between preoperative sonography and postoperative findings reached 100% for silicone breast implant ruptures. All eighty prosthetic capsules exhibiting a snowstorm sign in ultrasonography demonstrated silicone migration to capsules upon pathologic findings. Conclusions: High-resolution ultrasonography emerged as a valuable and reliable imaging modality for diagnosing silicone breast implant ruptures, with a notable ability to ascertain the extent of free silicone migration to capsules. This diagnostic precision is pivotal in informing decisions about potential capsulectomy during revisional surgery. The study advocates for an update to the current binary ultrasonographic classification, suggesting a more nuanced categorization into three types (subcapsular, intracapsular, and extracapsular) based on pathology.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Breast Implant Evaluation: 2023 Update

This document discusses the appropriate initial imaging in both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with breast implants. For asymptomatic patients with saline implants, no imaging is recommended. If concern for rupture exists, ultrasound is usually appropriate though saline rupture is often clinically evident. The FDA recently recommended patients have an initial ultrasound or MRI examination 5 to 6 years after initial silicone implant surgery and then every 2 to 3 years thereafter. In a patient with unexplained axillary adenopathy with current or prior silicone breast implants, ultrasound and/or mammography are usually appropriate, depending on age. In a patient with concern for silicone implant rupture, ultrasound or MRI without contrast is usually appropriate. In the setting of a patient with breast implants and possible implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ultrasound is usually appropriate as the initial imaging. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Rupture of 40-year-old silicone gel breast implants: a case report

BACKGROUND

Implant rupture is one of the complications of breast augmentation surgery. The rupture of silicone implants is often insidious, potentially causing problems at any time. This is a case report of the rupture of 145-cc breast implants manufactured by Dow Corning Corporation and their removal at 40 years after augmentation.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 70-year-old female patient was admitted for the removal of a lump in the upper and inner quadrants of the right breast. After a detailed examination, a rupture of the bilateral breast implants was diagnosed. Explantation without replacement was performed; the entire procedure proceeded smoothly. Immunohistochemical staining revealed siliconoma with lymphoid hyperplasia and calcification in the bilateral breasts with no signs of malignancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Silicone breast augmentation is one of the most popular aesthetic surgical procedures worldwide. Therefore, it is important to educate patients on the need for close monitoring of their implants after augmentation through magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasound to facilitate early detection of any changes before a rupture occurs. Early detection of the implant rupture, in turn, will facilitate early and effective management.

Silicone Granulomas of the Eyelids-A Case Series Illustrating a Distant Migratory Phenomenon

PURPOSE

Exogenous silicone has been reported to migrate to anatomic sights far from an initial injection or implantation site; this phenomenon has been rarely described in the ocular adnexa, especially in the eyelids. We document 3 additional cases of distant migration of silicone implanted elsewhere in the body to the eyelids and review the prior literature on this uncommon event.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of 3 patients was conducted along with analysis of diagnostic histopathology. A comprehensive review of the literature regarding dissemination or migration of silicone to the eyelids in patients with either silicone breast implants or silicone facial filler use was performed.

RESULTS

Cases of silicone migrating to the eyelids from silicone breast implants and silicone-based facial filler are outlined in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. There are 4 total reports of women with silicone breast implants, including the 2 described here, with evidence of migration of silicone to the eyelid. Similarly, 5 cases of silicone-based facial filler with resultant migration of filler to the eyelids were identified, including 2 of the cases presented in this report (1 patient had both silicone breast implants and silicone facial filler).

CONCLUSION

Silicone is chemically inert, but is known to travel throughout the body, causing a resultant foreign body response in tissue that can adversely affect even the eyelids. Silicone has a relatively characteristic histologic appearance and diagnosis of silicone granuloma highlights the importance of obtaining a thorough clinical history, particularly regarding prior cosmetic injections or breast enhancement surgery. Foreign material/foreign body granuloma is important to consider in patients with deep eyelid nodules of unclear etiology.

MRI for Evaluation of Complications of Breast Augmentation

Breast augmentation is one of the most common aesthetic procedures performed in the United States. Several techniques of breast augmentation have been developed, including the implantation of breast prostheses and the injection of autologous fat and other materials. The most common method of breast augmentation is to implant a prosthesis. There are different types of breast implants that vary in shape, composition, and the number of lumina. The rupture of breast implants is the leading cause of implant removal. The rupture rate increases substantially with the increasing age of the implant. Most implant ruptures are asymptomatic. Implant complications can be grouped into two categories: local complications in the breast and adjacent soft tissue, and systemic complications associated with rheumatologic or neurologic symptoms. The onset of local complications may be early (infection and periprosthetic collections including seromas, hematomas, or abscesses) or late (capsular contraction, implant rupture, gel bleed, or breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma). Although mammography is the imaging modality for breast cancer screening, noncontrast breast MRI is the imaging modality of choice for evaluation of the integrity of breast implants and the complications of breast augmentation, for equivocal findings at conventional imaging, and as a supplement to mammography in patients with free injectable materials. The fifth edition of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) provides a systematic outline for MRI evaluation of patients with breast implants. Silicone- and water-selective sequences provide useful supplemental information to confirm intracapsular and extracapsular rupture. Breast MRI for evaluation of implant integrity does not require intravenous contrast material. The use of MRI contrast material in patients with breast augmentation is indicated when infection or malignancy is suspected. Radiologists should have a thorough understanding of the different techniques for breast augmentation, normal imaging features, and complications specific to breast augmentation. An invited commentary by Ojeda-Fournier is available online. ^©RSNA, 2022.

The Role of High Resolution Ultrasonography in Elucidating Features of the Breast Implants in Asymptomatic Patients After Implant-based Augmentation Mammaplasty

BACKGROUND

We conducted this study to describe the feasibility of high-resolution ultrasound (HRUS) in characterizing a breast implant in patients receiving an implant-based augmentation mammaplasty.

METHODS

The current study was conducted in a total of 612 patients (n =6 12) receiving an implant-based augmentation mammaplasty at other hospitals between August 31, 2017 and August 31, 2020. Of these, 136 patients (n = 136; 272 breasts) receiving reoperation were included in the current study. We compared between the patients' subjective awareness of a breast implant and its HRUS findings and an agreement between HRUS findings of a breast implant and its findings at reoperation.

RESULTS

The proportion of the patients receiving a silicone gel-filled breast implant was increased from 65.44% (89/136) to 81.61% (111/136) on HRUS. Moreover, HRUS was effective in identifying a manufacturer of the device.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, our results indicate that HRUS is feasible in characterizing a breast implant in patients receiving an implant-based augmentation mammaplasty. But further prospective, large-scale studies are warranted to corroborate our results.

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 .

Surface imaging of breast implants using modern high-frequency ultrasound technology in comparison to high-end sonography with power analyses for B-scan optimization1

AIM

This study aims to evaluate optimized breast implant surface-structure analysis by comparing high-end ultrasound technology with a new high frequency technique. This comparative study used new breast implants with different surfaces in an in vitro setting.

METHODS

Nine idle silicon or polyurethane (PU) breast implants were examined by two investigators in an experimental in vitro study using two high-end ultrasound devices with multi-frequency transducers (6-15 MHz, 9-16 MHz, 12.5-33 MHz).The ultrasound B-Mode was optimized using tissue harmonic imaging (THI), speckle reduction imaging (SRI, level 0-5), cross beam (high, medium, low) and photopic.Using a standardized ultrasound protocol, the implants were examined in the middle (point of highest projection) and lateral, by two independent examiners.Image evaluation was performed on anonymized digital images in the PACS. The aim was to achieve an artifact-free recording of the surface structure, the surface coating, the total image structures and, as far as possible, an artifact-free internal representation of the implants.For independent surface evaluation a score was used (0 = undetectability of surface structures, rich in artifacts, 5 = best possible, artifact free image quality).

RESULTS

The quality of ultrasound imaging of breast implant surfaces after the optimization of B-Scan differed significantly comparing high-end ultrasound technology with modern high-frequency ultrasound technology (p < 0,05).The following setting has been found to be the best setting with the highest image quality:B-Mode, SRI value 3, Crossbeam high level with color coded imaging for B- mode. In the total examined frequency range of 6-33 MHz, the highest image quality was found in the average frequency range of 12.5-33 MHz at both measured points. For both devices, device 1 (high-end) and device 2 (high frequency) ultrasound, the image quality was in the12.5-33 MHz frequency range with an average image quality of 3.236. It was significantly higher, than in the lower frequency ranges and the same frequency range with THI. (p < 0,05).  The image quality of the high-end sonography device was superior to the conventional high-frequency ultrasound device in all frequency ranges.

CONCLUSION

High-end ultrasound imaging technology was superior in the quality of implant surface evaluation in comparison to high-frequency ultrasound sonography. The gained knowledge can serve as a basis for further multicenter clinical application and studies with the aim to develop an objective, precise tool to evaluate the implant and the surrounding tissue with ultrasound.

Current Challenges in Breast Implantation

Breast implantation (BI) is the most common plastic surgery worldwide performed among women. Generally, BI is performed both in aesthetic and oncoplastic procedures. Recently, the prevalence of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) or breast implant illness (BII) has aroused concerns. As a result, several countries, like Australia, Korea or the United Kingdom, introduced national registries dedicated to the safety and quality of BI surgeries. This narrative review aimed to focus on the clinical challenges, management and the current state of knowledge of BI. Both short and long-term outcomes of BI are determined by various alternatives and differences, which surgeons must consider during the planning and performing breast augmentation along with further complications or risk of reoperation. Proper preoperative decisions and aspects of surgical technique emerged to be equally important. The number of performed breast reconstructions is increasing, providing the finest aesthetic results and improving patient’s quality of life. Choice of prosthesis varies according to individual preferences and anatomical variables. A newly diagnosed cases of BIA-ALCL with lacking data on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment are placing it as a compelling medical challenge. Similarly, BII remains one of the most controversial subjects in reconstructive breast surgery due to unspecified diagnostic procedures, and recommendations.

What's Hot in Breast MRI

Several articles in the literature have demonstrated a promising role for breast MRI techniques that are more economic in total exam time than others when used as supplement to mammography for detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. There are many technical factors that must be considered in the shortened breast MRI protocols to cut down time of standard ones, including using optimal fat suppression, gadolinium-chelates intravascular contrast administrations for dynamic imaging with post processing subtractions and maximum intensity projections (MIP) high spatial and temporal resolution among others. Multiparametric breast MRI that includes both gadolinium-dependent, i.e., dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE-MRI) and gadolinium-free techniques, i.e., diffusion-weighted/diffusion-tensor magnetic resonance imaging (DWI/DTI) are shown by several investigators that can provide extremely high sensitivity and specificity for detection of breast cancer. This article provides an overview of the proven indications for breast MRI including breast cancer screening for higher than average risk, determining chemotherapy induced tumor response, detecting residual tumor after incomplete surgical excision, detecting occult cancer in patients presenting with axillary node metastasis, detecting residual tumor after incomplete breast cancer surgical excision, detecting cancer when results of conventional imaging are equivocal, as well patients suspicious of having breast implant rupture. Despite having the highest sensitivity for breast cancer detection, there are pitfalls, however, secondary to false positive and false negative contrast enhancement and contrast-free MRI techniques. Awareness of the strengths and limitations of different approaches to obtain state of the art MR images of the breast will facilitate the work-up of patients with suspicious breast lesions.

Delayed unilateral hematoma after reconstructive and aesthetic breast surgery with implants in Asian patients: two case reports

Hematomas represent one of the postoperative complications in patients undergoing reconstructive or aesthetic breast surgery with a silicone implant. Although there are few reports of intracapsular hematoma, those presenting late hematoma after reconstructive and aesthetic augmentation surgeries are rarer. This study reported two Asian patients with late hematoma after reconstruction and aesthetic breast surgery. A 54-year-old female patient underwent bilateral nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction using anatomically shaped textured implant for intraductal carcinoma in August 2019. Contralateral nipple-sparing mastectomy was performed for the BRCA gene mutation on the left breast, which was immediately reconstructed with an anatomically shaped textured implant. In a 1-year postoperative magnetic resonance imaging evaluation, an extracapsular hematoma was found on the right side, which was removed following the removal of both implants. Another case was a 63-year-old female patient who underwent augmentation of both breasts with smooth round implants and experienced right unilateral swelling and painless firmness about 30 years postoperatively. A preoperative magnetic resonance imaging evaluation showed both intracapsular and extracapsular ruptures on the right breast and a bulging implant herniation on the left breast. During the operation, hematoma, implants, and capsule were all removed. The excised capsule was sent for histological evaluation. Slightly dark colored blood was emptied before removing the semisolid-state intracapsular hematoma. In both cases, the patients responded well postoperatively and were discharged to their homes with no postsurgical complications, including seroma, or additional hematoma on the breasts. The etiology of late hematoma following breast augmentation or reconstruction has been poorly characterized. Further reports are needed to clearly establish the reasons for this increase in late hematoma formation.

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.

Plastic Surgery Complications: A Review for Emergency Clinicians

The number of aesthetic surgical procedures performed in the United States is increasing rapidly. Over 1.5 million surgical procedures and over three million nonsurgical procedures were performed in 2015 alone. Of these, the most common procedures included surgeries of the breast and abdominal wall, specifically implants, liposuction, and subcutaneous injections. Emergency clinicians may be tasked with the management of postoperative complications of cosmetic surgeries including postoperative infections, thromboembolic events, skin necrosis, hemorrhage, pulmonary edema, fat embolism syndrome, bowel cavity perforation, intra-abdominal injury, local seroma formation, and local anesthetic systemic toxicity. This review provides several guiding principles for management of acute complications. Understanding these complications and approach to their management is essential to optimizing patient care.

Inadvertent Rupture of a Silicone Breast Implant during Fat Grafting: Surgical and Radiological Findings

Autologous fat grafting is a common, relatively safe procedure for breast augmentation and reconstruction. The most commonly reported complications tend to be fat necrosis and oil cysts. The incidence of rare events, such as breast implant rupture, is likely underreported. Here we present the case of a patient who underwent fat grafting and sustained implant rupture with injection of fat within the silicone implant. She complained of her implant changing shape and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed classic signs of implant rupture (linguini sign). At the time of surgery however, fat was surprisingly found to be within the implant itself. To our knowledge this finding has yet to be reported. Here we review the radiologic and surgical findings of implant rupture following fat grafting and present some suggestions to prevent this occurrence and ensure safe, aesthetically pleasing outcomes.

Breast Implant Imaging Surveillance among U.S. Plastic Surgeons: U.S. Food and Drug Administration Recommendations versus Clinical Reality

BACKGROUND

Device rupture is considered a major complication associated with breast implants. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommends magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance 3 years after implantation and then every 2 years, but adherence to these recommendations is poor. The authors identified current practice management for breast implant rupture surveillance by surveying practicing U.S. plastic surgeons.

METHODS

An online survey of all active members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons was performed. Questions analyzed imaging practice patterns related to breast implants. Logistic regression models were used to analyze determinants for radiographic imaging in breast implant patients.

RESULTS

The survey had a response rate of 16.5 percent. For patients with breast implants, 37.7 percent of respondents recommended MRI at the recommended intervals. Fifty-five percent perform imaging only if there is a problem with the implant. Academic surgeons more frequently recommended MRI (56.3 percent and 39.3 percent; p = 0.0002). Surgeons with less than 5 years of experience are four times more likely to order MRI than surgeons with over 25 years' experience (60.8 percent and 28.1 percent; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, lower volume surgeons recommend significantly more MRI (45.2 percent and 27.3 percent; p = 0.001). Respondents are almost two times more likely to recommend MRI in reconstructive versus cosmetic patients (51.2 percent and 35.6 percent; p = 0.0004).

CONCLUSIONS

MRI limitations include high costs, time commitments, and equipment constraints. Fewer than 40 percent of survey respondents suggest the recommended screening frequency to their patients; however, academic, low-volume, early-career surgeons are more likely to recommend MRI implant monitoring. Screening recommendations need to be evidence based and align with common practices to prevent undue system, provider, and patient burden.

Diagnosis of Infectious Fluid Collections in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: The Role of Ultrasound

OBJECTIVE

Implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy remains the most common reconstructive modality worldwide. Infection is a frequent complication that negatively affects the reconstructive outcome and increases health-care costs. The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of ultrasonography in identifying fluid collections in patients with breast implant infection.

METHODS

After receiving institutional review board approval, a retrospective chart review was performed on patients who presented with breast implant infection after breast reconstruction, during the period 2009-2017. To estimate the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound (US) in detecting fluid collections, only patients with US evaluation and surgery during the same admission were included.

RESULTS

In total, 64 patients with 64 infected implants met the inclusion criteria. Infected devices included 44 (69%) tissue expanders, and 20 (31%) implants, of which 40 (62%) were placed in the subpectoral and 24 (38%) prepectoral positions. Periprosthetic fluid was identified by US preoperatively in 45 (70%) of the patients, and a fluid collection was found in 61 (95%) of the patients during surgery. Sensitivity and specificity of US were 74% and 100%, respectively. Inaccurate US results were more likely in patients with silicone implants than patients with saline expander implants.

CONCLUSION

Caution should be exercised in interpreting negative US findings in patients with silicone implants in the setting of infection. Other imaging modalities should be explored if US results are negative in cases with high clinical suspicion.

Disseminated silicone granulomatosis in the face and orbit

Purpose

To report a case of disseminated silicone granulomatosis presenting with ptosis, proptosis and vision loss.

Observations

A 56-year-old female presented with ptosis, proptosis, and vision loss and was noted to have palpable, erythematous masses involving the orbit, face, trunk, and body. She had a history of bilateral silicone breast implants and cosmetic facial filler injections. Orbital biopsy demonstrated non-caseating granulomas with foreign-body giant cells and vacuoles containing material consistent with silicone. Removal of the patient's breast implants and systemic immunosuppression led to dramatic granuloma regression.

Conclusions

Silicone can induce a severe, systemic inflammatory response and should be considered in the differential for facial and periorbital granulomas in patients with a history of silicone breast implants. Management of disseminated silicone granulomatosis is challenging and requires multimodal treatment with silicone removal and systemic immunomodulation.

A review of data in medical request and the patient questionnaire for magnetic resonance evaluation of silicone breast implants

Objective

To analyze the quality and quantity of data in the questionnaires and in request forms for magnetic resonance imaging.

Methods

This retrospective study was conducted with data from 300 medical records. The research used the following data from the questionnaires: patient age, reason for the magnetic resonance imaging, reason for placing the breast implant, report of any signs or symptoms, time elapsed since surgery to place the current breast implant, replacement implant surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation therapy treatments. From the magnetic resonance imaging request forms, information about the breast implant, the implant placement surgery, patient clinical information and ordering physician specialty were verified.

Results

The mean age of patients was 48.8 years, and the mean time elapsed since breast implant surgery was 5 years. A total of 60% of women in the sample were submitted to aesthetic surgery, while 23.7% were submitted to chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy. In the request forms, 23.7% of physicians added some piece of information about the patient, whereas 2.3% of them informed the type of implant and 5.2% informed about the surgery.

Conclusion

The amount of information in the magnetic resonance imaging request forms is very limited, and this may hinder quality of radiological reports. Institutional and technological measures should be implemented to encourage the requesting physicians and radiologists to share information.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus 3-Dimensional Laser Scanning for Breast Volume Assessment After Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

There are several methods available for measuring breast volume in the clinical setting, but the comparability and accuracy of different methods is not well described. The ideal breast volume measurement technique should be low cost, comfortable for the patient, have no ionizing radiation and be non-invasive.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study comparing a 3-dimensional (3D) laser scanner versus noncontrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for breast volume assessment. Subjects were women undergoing breast reconstruction with autologous fat graft. Both types of scan were performed the day before fat grafting and at 6 months postoperatively. Pearson correlations and Bland-Altman tests were performed to compare the assessment methods.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients underwent preoperative breast MRI and 3D laser scanning. Eighteen patients also underwent assessment 6 months after surgery. The total number of breasts scanned for comparison was 36, with a total of 72 comparisons for analysis. There was a strong linear association between the 2 methods using a Pearson correlation (r = 0.79; P <0.001), and Bland-Altman showed a high level of agreement between the 2 methods.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3D laser scanning, with an established protocol, was found to be equivalent to non-contrast MRI for the assessment of breast volume. Given the convenience of laser scanning and potential for lower cost compared with MRI, this technique should be considered for quantifying outcomes after complex breast reconstruction when the equipment is available.

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.

Silicone breast implant rupture: a review

Silicone breast implants have been in use for nearly 6 decades. In this time they have undergone significant changes in design and use. They have been subject to intense scrutiny with regard to safety and efficacy, including an almost 10 years moratorium on their use. The current generations of implants have been followed via the manufacturer's Core studies in order to obtain long term data regarding safety and complications. The results of the more recent studies are compiled in this review. Rupture rates are initially very low and begin to increase after 6-8 years of implantation. Implant rupture may be detected by physical exam, ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The majority of silicone implant ruptures are clinically undetectable. Symptomatic patients may present with capsular contracture, breast lumps or changes in breast shape. The most common cause of implant rupture is instrument damage during placement. Implant rupture may be confined to the peri-prosthetic capsule or may extravasate into the breast tissue. Patients with ruptured implants have been studied closely and the consensus of the literature states there are no health risks associated with implant rupture. Symptomatic patients with ruptured implants should be offered the choice of observation, or explantation and capsulectomy with or without replacement.

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 .

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.

Diagnosing PIP breast implant failure: a prospective analysis of clinical and ultrasound accuracy

INTRODUCTION

The risk of Poly Implant Prosthesis (PIP) breast implant failure has been quantified by the Department of Health as 2-6 times greater than other brands. In the UK, removal of PIP breast implants is recommended when failure is suspected from patient history or clinical findings. Owing to conflicting reports of accuracy in current literature, ultrasound is not recommended as a routine investigation. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of patient history, clinical impression, and ultrasound at diagnosing implant failure in a large consecutive series of women against the reference standard. We aimed to provide evidence in response to current guidelines and help guide best practice.

METHODS

All patients from January 2012-January 2013 who underwent PIP breast implant explantation at the Spire Murrayfield Hospital were prospectively evaluated. Operative findings were correlated to pre-operative results of patient history, clinical impression and ultrasound imaging. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were calculated with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 192 women who underwent 384 PIP implant explantations from January 2012 to January 2013 were included. Twenty-three patients (12.0%) reported a positive patient history pre-operatively. In 35 patients (18%), failure was pre-operatively diagnosed clinically. Intra-operatively, 80 implants (21%) in 63 women (33%) had failed. The sensitivity of patient history, clinical impression and ultrasound was 12%, 34%, and 91%, respectively. The specificity was 88%, 89%, and 97%, respectively. Ultrasound was 96% accurate at diagnosing PIP implant failure, whilst patient history and clinical impression were 63% and 71% accurate, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Ultrasound provides a far more reliable test of implant failure than patient history or clinical impression. Considering the availability, cost and number of women in the UK with PIP implants, we would recommend high-resolution ultrasound be implemented as a routine investigation.

Correlation between MRI results and intraoperative findings in patients with silicone breast implants

Background

Silicone gel breast implants may silently rupture without detection. This has been the main reason for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the augmented or reconstructed breast. The aim of the present study was to investigate the accuracy of MRI for implant rupture.

Methods

Fifty consecutive patients with 85 silicone gel implants were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 51 (range 21–72) years, with a mean duration of implantation of 3.8 (range 1–28) years. All patients underwent clinical examination and breast MRI. Intraoperative implant rupture was diagnosed by the operating surgeon.

Results

Nineteen of the 50 patients suffered from clinical symptoms. An implant rupture was diagnosed by MRI in 22 of 85 implants (26%). In seven of 17 removed implants (41%), the intraoperative diagnosis corresponded with the positive MRI result. However, only 57% of these patients were symptomatic. Ultrasound imaging of the harvested implants showed signs of interrupted inner layers of the implant despite integrity of the outer shell. By microsurgical separation of the different layers of the implant shell, we were able to reproduce this phenomenon and to produce signs of implant rupture on MRI.

Conclusion

Our results show that rupture of only the inner layers of the implant shell with integrity of the outer shell leads to a misdiagnosis on MRI. Correlation with clinical symptoms and the specific wishes of the patient should guide the indication for implant removal.

Ultrasonography: a useful tool for plastic surgeons

Ultrasonography is a diagnostic technique used in many clinical specialties that should also be used by plastic surgeons. The authors have used ultrasonography since 2011 as part of the routine follow-up evaluation for all their patients who have undergone breast augmentation (the main indication), body implants, gynecomastia, fat transfer, or abdominoplasty. The main goal of this study was to correlate normal and pathologic conditions clinically with their respective imaging findings. The secondary aim was to establish the utility of this tool in a plastic surgery setting. With increasing experience, the use of ultrasound evaluation was expanded to include evaluation of seromas and hematomas, determination of the diastasis recti width, and confirmation of the presence of hernias, especially in patients with high adiposity, who are difficult to scan. This report describes several clinical cases of complications associated with breast augmentation and discusses the most significant common problems encountered during the first 2 years of ultrasonography scanner use in a plastic surgeon's office.

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.

Breast care in the transgender individual

INTRODUCTION

Transgender individuals undergo hormone therapy and/or alter their breasts or genitals to facilitate a transition from male to female or female to male. Changes in the breast tissue from hormone therapy, breast binding, mastectomy, or breast augmentation are of specific interest to women's health care providers. To provide competent care, providers must be knowledgeable about unique aspects of breast health in this vulnerable population, including screening guidelines and client education. The purpose of this integrative literature review is to compile the current research on breast health for transgender individuals and to serve as a resource for providers.

METHODS

A search of the literature was performed using CINAHL, Ovid, and PubMed. Results were reviewed for relevant articles, and the reference lists of these were reviewed for additional resources. When available, studies specific to the transgender population are presented; studies of other populations are also included when relevant. Theories of human endocrinology, physiology, and anatomy will provide the foundation for the review and discussion.

RESULTS

Research into breast care for transgender individuals is limited. Often, practitioners must draw conclusions for practice from scattered case studies or research with nontransgender populations. Many of the procedures and practices transgender individuals choose to undergo, such as implantation, injection, binding, and mastectomy, carry serious risks.

DISCUSSION

Transgender individuals should be counseled on all the possible outcomes of their decisions, so they are capable of making informed choices. They must also be followed with careful consideration of these choices. More research in many areas of transgender breast care is necessary.

PIP silicone breast implants: rupture rates based on the explantation of 676 implants in a single surgeon series

INTRODUCTION

To determine the true rupture rates of PIP implants from a large single surgeon cohort and to assess whether rupture rates varied depending on time of implant insertion. In addition, the efficacy of ultra sound scanning (USS) in determining rupture is examined.

DESIGN

Predominantly prospectively based analysis of patient records, investigations and surgical findings.

PARTICIPANTS

338 patients (676 implants) were included in the study and they all had removal of their implants. The senior author operated on all patients at some stage of their treatment. 160 patients were imaged pre-operatively with USS. Patients had implants inserted between 1999 and 2007 for cosmetic breast augmentation.

RESULTS

A total of 144 ruptured implants were removed from 119 patients, giving a rupture rate of 35.2% per patient and 21.3% per implant over a mean implantation period of 7.8 years. A statistical difference (P < 0.001) in rupture rates between implants inserted prior to 2003 and those inserted from 2003 was demonstrated, with higher failure rates in the latter group. There was a significant difference in rupture rates depending on pocket placement of the implants. The sensitivity and specificity of USS at detecting rupture was 90.6% and 98.3% respectively. A proportion of patients (29.4%) demonstrated loco-regional spread of silicone to the axilla on scanning.

CONCLUSIONS

Our paper has confirmed high rates of PIP implant failure in the largest published series to date. The significant difference in rupture rates between implants inserted prior to 2003 and those after this time supports the view that industrial silicone was used in the devices after 2003. Implants are more likely to rupture if inserted in the sub muscular plane compared to the sub glandular plane. USS is highly effective at detecting rupture in PIP implants and loco-regional spread is high compared to other devices. We believe this paper provides hard data enabling more informed decision making for patients, clinicians and providers in what remains an active issue affecting thousands of women.

Autologous fat transplantation: volumetric tools for estimation of volume survival. A systematic review

Autologous fat transplantation has gained great recognition in aesthetic and reconstructive surgery. Two main aspects are of predominant importance for progress control after autologous fat transplantation to the breast: quantitative information about the rate of fat survival in terms of effective volume persistence and qualitative information about the breast tissue to exclude potential complications of autologous fat transplantation. There are several tools available for use in evaluating the rate of volume survival. They are extensively compared in this review. The anthropometric method, thermoplastic casts, and Archimedes' principle of water displacement are not up to date anymore because of major drawbacks, first and foremost being reduced reproducibility and exactness. They have been replaced by more exact and reproducible tools such as MRI volumetry or 3D body surface scans. For qualitative and quantitative progress control, MRI volumetry offers all the necessary information: evaluation of fat survival and diagnostically valuable imaging to exclude possible complications of autologous fat transplantation. For frequent follow-up, e.g., monthly volume analysis, repeated MRI exams would not be good for the patient and are not cost effective. In these cases, 3D surface imaging is a good tool and especially helpful in a private practice setting where fast data acquisition is needed. This tool also offers the possibility of simulating the results of autologous fat transplantation.

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 .

Implant ruptures after augmentation mammoplasty

This article discusses eleven cases of implant ruptures in nine patients that occurred 3-10 years after primary surgery. The implant ruptures were diagnosed by visual inspection, palpation, ultrasound and MRI of the breast. We describe rupture symptoms and treatment tactics depending on the characteristics of the rupture, the nature of the filler (liquid silicone, soft cohesive gel (Soft Touch™) or high cohesive silicone gel), the current condition of the soft tissues and presence of any complications. We present recommendations allowing early detection of an asymptomatic rupture.

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 .

How should we investigate breast implant rupture?

We aimed to examine a cohort of patients presenting with breast implant complications to establish the sensitivity and specificity of clinical examination, Ultrasound Scanning (US) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of implant rupture, and to examine the correlation between US and MRI. We performed a 26-month retrospective review. Patients underwent US and MRI to exclude rupture. Results of US and MRI were compared prospectively for concordance, then retrospectively to clinical findings and surgical diagnosis. Thirty-four patients with 60 implants were reviewed. The sensitivities of clinical diagnosis, US, and MRI for rupture was 42%, 50%, and 83%, respectively, while the specificities were 50%, 90%, and 90%. The concordance between US and MRI was 87%. MRI is the investigation of choice for implant rupture. US is a valuable alternative with good concordance with MRI. When US is positive for implant rupture an MRI is not necessary to confirm the diagnosis. Knowledge of the sensitivity and specificity as well as the concordance between the two investigations is useful to ensure the appropriate use of available resources.

Dual-energy CT for the evaluation of silicone breast implants

OBJECTIVE

The evaluation of breast implants for rupture is currently the domain of ultrasound and MRI, while mammography is of very limited diagnostic value. Recently, specific visualisation of silicone has become feasible using dual-energy CT. Our objective was to evaluate whether it is feasible to identify silicone in breast implants by dual-energy CT and to reliably diagnose or rule out ruptures.

METHODS

Seven silicone breast implant specimens were examined on dual-source CT at 100- and 140-kV tube potential with a 0.8-mm tin filter (collimation 128 × 0.6 mm, current-time products 165 and 140 mAsref with modulation, rotation time 0.28 s, pitch 0.55). Two patients scheduled for implant removal or replacement were examined with identical parameters.

RESULTS

The silicone of the implant specimens showed a strong dual-energy signal. In one patient, both implants were intact, while a rupture was identified in the other patient. Ultrasound, MRI, surgical findings and histology confirmed the dual-energy CT diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Dual-energy CT may serve as an alternative technique for speedy evaluation of silicone breast implants. Specific clinical studies are required to determine the diagnostic accuracy and define indications for this technique.

Economic analysis of screening strategies for rupture of silicone gel breast implants

BACKGROUND

In 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommended screening of all women with silicone gel breast implants with magnetic resonance imaging 3 years after implantation and every 2 years thereafter to assess their integrity. The cost for these serial examinations over the lifetime of the breast implants is an added burden to insurance payers and to women. The authors performed an economic analysis to determine optimal screening strategies by considering the diagnostic accuracy of the screening tests, costs of the tests, and subsequent implant removal.

METHODS

The authors determined aggregate/pooled values for sensitivity and specificity of the screening tests of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in detecting silicone breast implant ruptures from the data obtained from published literature. They compiled costs, based on Medicare reimbursements for 2011, for the following elements: imaging modalities, anesthesia, and three surgical treatment options for detected ruptures. A decision tree was used to compare three alternate screening strategies of ultrasound only, magnetic resonance imaging only, and ultrasound followed by magnetic resonance in asymptomatic and symptomatic women.

RESULTS

The cost per rupture of screening and management of rupture with ultrasound in asymptomatic women was $1090; in symptomatic women, it was $1622. A similar cost for magnetic resonance imaging in asymptomatic women was $2067; in symptomatic women it was $2143. A similar cost for ultrasound followed by imaging in asymptomatic women was $637; in symptomatic women, it was $2908.

CONCLUSION

Screening with ultrasound followed by magnetic resonance imaging was optimal for asymptomatic women, and screening with ultrasound was optimal for symptomatic women.