Li. Everson et al., DIAGNOSIS OF BREAST IMPLANT RUPTURE - IMAGING FINDINGS AND RELATIVE EFFICACIES OF IMAGING TECHNIQUES, American journal of roentgenology, 163(1), 1994, pp. 57-60
OBJECTIVE.The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacies of m
ammography, sonography, CT, and MR imaging in the detection of breast
implant rupture and to analyze the imaging findings, SUBJECTS AND METH
ODS. Thirty-two women with 63 silicone breast implants participated in
the study. All but one had signs and symptoms suggestive of rupture,
and all had requested that their implants be removed before they were
enrolled in this imaging study. All patients had film-screen mammograp
hy, sonography, CT, and MR imaging. Twenty-two ruptures were found at
surgery; 21 were intracapsular and one was extracapsular, The relative
efficacies of the imaging studies were determined, and the imaging fi
ndings were compared with the surgical results. RESULTS. Of the 32 wom
en with 63 implants, mammographic sensitivity for detecting implant ru
pture was only 23% but the specificity was 98%, Sonography had a highe
r sensitivity (59%), but its specificity was significantly lower (79%)
, CT had a sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 88%. MR was the onl
y imaging technique that consistently provided evidence that enabled t
he evaluation of intracapsular and extracapsular ruptures. The sensiti
vity and specificity of MR imaging were 95% and 93%, respectively. CON
CLUSION. Our results show that MR imaging is more sensitive and specif
ic for the detection of breast implant rupture than is mammography, CT
, or sonography,