Utility of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in diagnosing breast implant rupture

G. Weizer, Robert S. Malone, David T. Netscher, L. E. Walker, J. Thornby

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Scopus citations

Abstract

We prospectively evaluated 81 patients (with 160 implants) who subsequently had implants remove to determine sensitivity and specificity of both magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography. Positive and negative predictive values were also calculated to determine whether a statistically beneficial interaction existed when ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging were used in combination to examine an implant. Finally, the misdiagnoses were retrospectively evaluated to identify the pitfalls of the investigations. Positive diagnostic criteria were described. The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography were 47% and 83%, respectively, and of MRI, 46% and 88%, respectively. On retrospective review by the radiologist, the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography were 70% and 90%, respectively, and of magnetic resonance imaging, 75.6% and 94%, respectively. Although definite conclusions could not be obtained, there did not seem to be an additive benefit from using both ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)352-361
Number of pages10
JournalAnnals of plastic surgery
Volume34
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1995

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Utility of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in diagnosing breast implant rupture'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this