Silicone breast implant rupture: Pitfalls of magnetic resonance imaging and relative efficacies of magnetic resonance, mammography, and ultrasound

The objective of this study was to evaluate the relative efficacies of magn etic resonance (MR) imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography in implant ru pture detection and to illustrate pitfalls in MR image interpretation. Thir ty patients referred by plastic surgeons with suspected breast implant rupt ure were prospectively evaluated using MR ultrasonography, and mammography. Imaging examinations were interpreted independently and blindly for implan t rupture and correlated to operative findings. Surgical correlation in 16 patients (53 percent) with 31 implants showed 13 (42 percent) were intact, 5 (16 percent) had severe gel bleed, and 13 (42 percent) were ruptured. MR sensitivity was 100 percent and specificity was 63 percent. Accuracy for ru pture was 81 percent with MR, higher than with ultrasonography and mammogra phy (77 and 59 percent, respectively). We describe a specific pitfall in MR interpretation, the "rat-tail" sign, composed of a medial linear extension of silicone along the chest wall. Seen in eight cases (four intact, three ruptures, one gel bleed), the rat-tail sign may lead to misdiagnosis of imp lant rupture if seen in isolation. Magnetic resonance imaging is more accur ate and sensitive than ultrasonography and mammography in detecting breast implant rupture. We describe a new sign (rat-tail sign) composed of medial compression of the implant simulating silicone extrusion as a potential fal se-positive MR finding for rupture. This article presents clinical experien ce with magnetic resonance, mammography, and ultrasound in the diagnosis of implant rupture and defines and illustrates potential pitfalls of MR inter pretation, including the new rat-tail sign.