Single- and double-lumen silicone breast implant integrity: Prospective evaluation of MR and US criteria

W. A. Berg, C. I. Caskey, Ulrike Maria Hamper, J. E. Kuhlman, N. D. Anderson, B. W. Chang, Sheila Sheth, Elias Zerhouni

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) and ultrasound (US) criteria for breast implant integrity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-two single-lumen silicone breast implants and 22 bilumen implants were evaluated with surface coil MR imaging and US and surgically removed. MR criteria for implant failure were a collapsed implant shell ('linguine sign'), foci of silicone outside the shell ('noose sign'), and extracapsular gel. US criteria were a collapsed shell, low-level echoes within the gel, and 'snowstorm' echoes of extracapsular silicone. RESULTS: Among single-lumen implants, MR imaging depicted 39 of 40 ruptures, 14 of 28 with minimal leakage; 49 of 54 intact implants were correctly interpreted. US depicted 26 of 40 ruptured implants, four of 28 with minimal leakage, and 30 of 54 intact implants. Among bilumen implants, MR imaging depicted four of five implants with rupture of both lumina and nine of 10 as intact; US depicted one rupture and helped identify two of 10 as intact. Mammography accurately depicted the status of 29 of 30 bilumen implants with MR imaging correlation. CONCLUSION: MR imaging depicts implant integrity more accurately than US; neither method reliably depicts minimal leakage with shell collapse. Mammography is useful in screening bilumen implant integrity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)45-52
Number of pages8
JournalRadiology
Volume197
Issue number1
StatePublished - 1995

Fingerprint

Breast Implants
Silicones
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Rupture
Mammography
Gels

Keywords

  • Breast, MR
  • Breast, prostheses
  • Breast, US

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Berg, W. A., Caskey, C. I., Hamper, U. M., Kuhlman, J. E., Anderson, N. D., Chang, B. W., ... Zerhouni, E. (1995). Single- and double-lumen silicone breast implant integrity: Prospective evaluation of MR and US criteria. Radiology, 197(1), 45-52.

Single- and double-lumen silicone breast implant integrity : Prospective evaluation of MR and US criteria. / Berg, W. A.; Caskey, C. I.; Hamper, Ulrike Maria; Kuhlman, J. E.; Anderson, N. D.; Chang, B. W.; Sheth, Sheila; Zerhouni, Elias.

In: Radiology, Vol. 197, No. 1, 1995, p. 45-52.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Berg WA, Caskey CI, Hamper UM, Kuhlman JE, Anderson ND, Chang BW et al. Single- and double-lumen silicone breast implant integrity: Prospective evaluation of MR and US criteria. Radiology. 1995;197(1):45-52.
Berg, W. A. ; Caskey, C. I. ; Hamper, Ulrike Maria ; Kuhlman, J. E. ; Anderson, N. D. ; Chang, B. W. ; Sheth, Sheila ; Zerhouni, Elias. / Single- and double-lumen silicone breast implant integrity : Prospective evaluation of MR and US criteria. In: Radiology. 1995 ; Vol. 197, No. 1. pp. 45-52.
@article{42f3564a7d0f41979ea8f4df097d8d0a,
title = "Single- and double-lumen silicone breast implant integrity: Prospective evaluation of MR and US criteria",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) and ultrasound (US) criteria for breast implant integrity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-two single-lumen silicone breast implants and 22 bilumen implants were evaluated with surface coil MR imaging and US and surgically removed. MR criteria for implant failure were a collapsed implant shell ('linguine sign'), foci of silicone outside the shell ('noose sign'), and extracapsular gel. US criteria were a collapsed shell, low-level echoes within the gel, and 'snowstorm' echoes of extracapsular silicone. RESULTS: Among single-lumen implants, MR imaging depicted 39 of 40 ruptures, 14 of 28 with minimal leakage; 49 of 54 intact implants were correctly interpreted. US depicted 26 of 40 ruptured implants, four of 28 with minimal leakage, and 30 of 54 intact implants. Among bilumen implants, MR imaging depicted four of five implants with rupture of both lumina and nine of 10 as intact; US depicted one rupture and helped identify two of 10 as intact. Mammography accurately depicted the status of 29 of 30 bilumen implants with MR imaging correlation. CONCLUSION: MR imaging depicts implant integrity more accurately than US; neither method reliably depicts minimal leakage with shell collapse. Mammography is useful in screening bilumen implant integrity.",
keywords = "Breast, MR, Breast, prostheses, Breast, US",
author = "Berg, {W. A.} and Caskey, {C. I.} and Hamper, {Ulrike Maria} and Kuhlman, {J. E.} and Anderson, {N. D.} and Chang, {B. W.} and Sheila Sheth and Elias Zerhouni",
year = "1995",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "197",
pages = "45--52",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Single- and double-lumen silicone breast implant integrity

T2 - Prospective evaluation of MR and US criteria

AU - Berg, W. A.

AU - Caskey, C. I.

AU - Hamper, Ulrike Maria

AU - Kuhlman, J. E.

AU - Anderson, N. D.

AU - Chang, B. W.

AU - Sheth, Sheila

AU - Zerhouni, Elias

PY - 1995

Y1 - 1995

N2 - PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) and ultrasound (US) criteria for breast implant integrity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-two single-lumen silicone breast implants and 22 bilumen implants were evaluated with surface coil MR imaging and US and surgically removed. MR criteria for implant failure were a collapsed implant shell ('linguine sign'), foci of silicone outside the shell ('noose sign'), and extracapsular gel. US criteria were a collapsed shell, low-level echoes within the gel, and 'snowstorm' echoes of extracapsular silicone. RESULTS: Among single-lumen implants, MR imaging depicted 39 of 40 ruptures, 14 of 28 with minimal leakage; 49 of 54 intact implants were correctly interpreted. US depicted 26 of 40 ruptured implants, four of 28 with minimal leakage, and 30 of 54 intact implants. Among bilumen implants, MR imaging depicted four of five implants with rupture of both lumina and nine of 10 as intact; US depicted one rupture and helped identify two of 10 as intact. Mammography accurately depicted the status of 29 of 30 bilumen implants with MR imaging correlation. CONCLUSION: MR imaging depicts implant integrity more accurately than US; neither method reliably depicts minimal leakage with shell collapse. Mammography is useful in screening bilumen implant integrity.

AB - PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) and ultrasound (US) criteria for breast implant integrity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-two single-lumen silicone breast implants and 22 bilumen implants were evaluated with surface coil MR imaging and US and surgically removed. MR criteria for implant failure were a collapsed implant shell ('linguine sign'), foci of silicone outside the shell ('noose sign'), and extracapsular gel. US criteria were a collapsed shell, low-level echoes within the gel, and 'snowstorm' echoes of extracapsular silicone. RESULTS: Among single-lumen implants, MR imaging depicted 39 of 40 ruptures, 14 of 28 with minimal leakage; 49 of 54 intact implants were correctly interpreted. US depicted 26 of 40 ruptured implants, four of 28 with minimal leakage, and 30 of 54 intact implants. Among bilumen implants, MR imaging depicted four of five implants with rupture of both lumina and nine of 10 as intact; US depicted one rupture and helped identify two of 10 as intact. Mammography accurately depicted the status of 29 of 30 bilumen implants with MR imaging correlation. CONCLUSION: MR imaging depicts implant integrity more accurately than US; neither method reliably depicts minimal leakage with shell collapse. Mammography is useful in screening bilumen implant integrity.

KW - Breast, MR

KW - Breast, prostheses

KW - Breast, US

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029145101&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029145101&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 7568852

AN - SCOPUS:0029145101

VL - 197

SP - 45

EP - 52

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 1

ER -