The diagnosis of silicone breast-implant rupture: clinical findings compared with findings at magnetic resonance imaging.

Abstract

The objective was to evaluate the usefulness of clinical examination in the evaluation of breast-implant integrity, using the diagnosis at magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the "gold standard." Fifty-five women with 109 implants underwent a breast examination either just before or shortly after an MRI examination. Twenty-four of 109 implants were clinically diagnosed with possible rupture or rupture. Eighteen of the 24 implants were ruptured according to the MRI examination (75%). Eighty-five implants were clinically classified as intact, and 43 of these were actually ruptured at MRI (51%). The sensitivity of the clinical examination for diagnosing rupture was thus 30% and the specificity 88%. The positive predictive value of a clinical diagnosis of rupture was 75%, and the negative predictive value was 49%. In this study, we found that when a clinical examination is used as the sole diagnostic tool to identify implant rupture, neither the sensitivity nor the specificity is acceptable.

• Authors: Lisbet Rosenkrantz Hölmich, Jon P Fryzek, Kim Kjøller, Vibeke Bro Breiting, Anna Jørgensen, Christen Krag, Joseph K McLaughlin
• Journal: Annals of plastic surgery (Ann Plast Surg) Vol. 54 Issue 6 Pg. 583-9 (Jun 2005) ISSN: 0148-7043 [Print] United States
• PMID: 15900139 (Publication Type: Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't)

Chemical References

• Biocompatible Materials
• Silicone Gels

Topics

• Adult
• Biocompatible Materials (adverse effects)
• Breast Implantation (instrumentation)
• Breast Implants (adverse effects)
• Female
• Humans
• Magnetic Resonance Imaging
• Middle Aged
• Physical Examination
• Postoperative Complications
• Prosthesis Failure
• Sensitivity and Specificity
• Silicone Gels (adverse effects)
• Single-Blind Method