Phantom Evaluation of Imaging Modalities for Silicone Breast Implants

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES.Recent concern regarding possible adverse effects from silicone breast implants has increased the role of radiologists in assessing augmented breasts. The authors compare the commonly available imaging modalities in evaluating the intact silicone implant as well as free sili...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Investigative radiology 1992-10, Vol.27 (10), p.841-846
Hauptverfasser: STEINBACH, BARBARA G, HISKES, STEPHANIE K, FITZSIMMONS, JEFFREY R, LANIER, LINDA
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 846
container_issue 10
container_start_page 841
container_title Investigative radiology
container_volume 27
creator STEINBACH, BARBARA G
HISKES, STEPHANIE K
FITZSIMMONS, JEFFREY R
LANIER, LINDA
description RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES.Recent concern regarding possible adverse effects from silicone breast implants has increased the role of radiologists in assessing augmented breasts. The authors compare the commonly available imaging modalities in evaluating the intact silicone implant as well as free silicone in the adjacent tissue. METHODS.A contrast resolution phantom and breast of veal phantom were tested. Fat was used as a reference material. The phantoms were imaged with xeromammography, filmscreen mammography, ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Proton MRI spectroscopy also was performed on fat, silicone, water, and water/gelatin samples. The consensus of two radiologists determined whether free silicone was present. RESULTS.CT and MRI provided the best images of the implant and the free silicone. Several features of MRI were usefulspin-density scans and the fast low-angle shot (FLASH) and fast imaging with steady-state precision (FISP) techniques provided excellent resolution, a consistent chemical shift artifact appeared around the silicone, and frequency selective presaturation techniques resulted in marked suppression of the silicone. CONCLUSION.Additional testing in a more realistic setting, breast coil design, and improvement of various MRI techniques, particularly the frequency selective pre-saturation techniques, all appear promising in evaluating breast implants, the presence of free silicone, and the adjacent tissues.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/00004424-199210000-00015
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>pubmed_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1097_00004424_199210000_00015</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1399441</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3555-9138584aef684f1e19ffa9d871cc628b448383fb3dcf8456bc3f4ebd6cc8c0f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kN1OAyEQhYnR1Fp9BBNeAIUFtnCpTdUmNZrYe8Ky0K6ySwNbG99e6vpz5SSTycw5Zy4-ACDBVwTL6TXOxVjBEJGyIIcN5Sb8CIwJpyXC-XgMxhgXGEkpy1NwltJrthRTTEdgRKiUjJExmD9vdNeHFs7ftd_pvgkdDA4uWr1uujV8DLX2Td_YBF2I8KXxjQmdhbfR6tRn29bneDoHJ077ZC--5wSs7uar2QNaPt0vZjdLZCjnHElCBRdMW1cK5ogl0jktazElxpSFqBgTVFBX0do4wXhZGeqYrerSGGGwoxMghrcmhpSidWobm1bHD0WwOnBRP1zULxf1xSVHL4fodle1tv4LDiCyzgZ9H3xvY3rzu72NamO17zfqP9z0E2aNbX0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Phantom Evaluation of Imaging Modalities for Silicone Breast Implants</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>STEINBACH, BARBARA G ; HISKES, STEPHANIE K ; FITZSIMMONS, JEFFREY R ; LANIER, LINDA</creator><creatorcontrib>STEINBACH, BARBARA G ; HISKES, STEPHANIE K ; FITZSIMMONS, JEFFREY R ; LANIER, LINDA</creatorcontrib><description>RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES.Recent concern regarding possible adverse effects from silicone breast implants has increased the role of radiologists in assessing augmented breasts. The authors compare the commonly available imaging modalities in evaluating the intact silicone implant as well as free silicone in the adjacent tissue. METHODS.A contrast resolution phantom and breast of veal phantom were tested. Fat was used as a reference material. The phantoms were imaged with xeromammography, filmscreen mammography, ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Proton MRI spectroscopy also was performed on fat, silicone, water, and water/gelatin samples. The consensus of two radiologists determined whether free silicone was present. RESULTS.CT and MRI provided the best images of the implant and the free silicone. Several features of MRI were usefulspin-density scans and the fast low-angle shot (FLASH) and fast imaging with steady-state precision (FISP) techniques provided excellent resolution, a consistent chemical shift artifact appeared around the silicone, and frequency selective presaturation techniques resulted in marked suppression of the silicone. CONCLUSION.Additional testing in a more realistic setting, breast coil design, and improvement of various MRI techniques, particularly the frequency selective pre-saturation techniques, all appear promising in evaluating breast implants, the presence of free silicone, and the adjacent tissues.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0020-9996</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1536-0210</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/00004424-199210000-00015</identifier><identifier>PMID: 1399441</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Lippincott-Raven Publishers</publisher><subject>Breast - anatomy &amp; histology ; Female ; Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Mammaplasty - adverse effects ; Mammography ; Models, Structural ; Prostheses and Implants - adverse effects ; Silicones - adverse effects ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed ; Ultrasonography, Mammary ; Xeromammography</subject><ispartof>Investigative radiology, 1992-10, Vol.27 (10), p.841-846</ispartof><rights>Lippincott-Raven Publishers.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3555-9138584aef684f1e19ffa9d871cc628b448383fb3dcf8456bc3f4ebd6cc8c0f3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27915,27916</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1399441$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>STEINBACH, BARBARA G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HISKES, STEPHANIE K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>FITZSIMMONS, JEFFREY R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LANIER, LINDA</creatorcontrib><title>Phantom Evaluation of Imaging Modalities for Silicone Breast Implants</title><title>Investigative radiology</title><addtitle>Invest Radiol</addtitle><description>RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES.Recent concern regarding possible adverse effects from silicone breast implants has increased the role of radiologists in assessing augmented breasts. The authors compare the commonly available imaging modalities in evaluating the intact silicone implant as well as free silicone in the adjacent tissue. METHODS.A contrast resolution phantom and breast of veal phantom were tested. Fat was used as a reference material. The phantoms were imaged with xeromammography, filmscreen mammography, ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Proton MRI spectroscopy also was performed on fat, silicone, water, and water/gelatin samples. The consensus of two radiologists determined whether free silicone was present. RESULTS.CT and MRI provided the best images of the implant and the free silicone. Several features of MRI were usefulspin-density scans and the fast low-angle shot (FLASH) and fast imaging with steady-state precision (FISP) techniques provided excellent resolution, a consistent chemical shift artifact appeared around the silicone, and frequency selective presaturation techniques resulted in marked suppression of the silicone. CONCLUSION.Additional testing in a more realistic setting, breast coil design, and improvement of various MRI techniques, particularly the frequency selective pre-saturation techniques, all appear promising in evaluating breast implants, the presence of free silicone, and the adjacent tissues.</description><subject>Breast - anatomy &amp; histology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Mammaplasty - adverse effects</subject><subject>Mammography</subject><subject>Models, Structural</subject><subject>Prostheses and Implants - adverse effects</subject><subject>Silicones - adverse effects</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Mammary</subject><subject>Xeromammography</subject><issn>0020-9996</issn><issn>1536-0210</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1992</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kN1OAyEQhYnR1Fp9BBNeAIUFtnCpTdUmNZrYe8Ky0K6ySwNbG99e6vpz5SSTycw5Zy4-ACDBVwTL6TXOxVjBEJGyIIcN5Sb8CIwJpyXC-XgMxhgXGEkpy1NwltJrthRTTEdgRKiUjJExmD9vdNeHFs7ftd_pvgkdDA4uWr1uujV8DLX2Td_YBF2I8KXxjQmdhbfR6tRn29bneDoHJ077ZC--5wSs7uar2QNaPt0vZjdLZCjnHElCBRdMW1cK5ogl0jktazElxpSFqBgTVFBX0do4wXhZGeqYrerSGGGwoxMghrcmhpSidWobm1bHD0WwOnBRP1zULxf1xSVHL4fodle1tv4LDiCyzgZ9H3xvY3rzu72NamO17zfqP9z0E2aNbX0</recordid><startdate>199210</startdate><enddate>199210</enddate><creator>STEINBACH, BARBARA G</creator><creator>HISKES, STEPHANIE K</creator><creator>FITZSIMMONS, JEFFREY R</creator><creator>LANIER, LINDA</creator><general>Lippincott-Raven Publishers</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199210</creationdate><title>Phantom Evaluation of Imaging Modalities for Silicone Breast Implants</title><author>STEINBACH, BARBARA G ; HISKES, STEPHANIE K ; FITZSIMMONS, JEFFREY R ; LANIER, LINDA</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3555-9138584aef684f1e19ffa9d871cc628b448383fb3dcf8456bc3f4ebd6cc8c0f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1992</creationdate><topic>Breast - anatomy &amp; histology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Mammaplasty - adverse effects</topic><topic>Mammography</topic><topic>Models, Structural</topic><topic>Prostheses and Implants - adverse effects</topic><topic>Silicones - adverse effects</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Mammary</topic><topic>Xeromammography</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>STEINBACH, BARBARA G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HISKES, STEPHANIE K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>FITZSIMMONS, JEFFREY R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LANIER, LINDA</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Investigative radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>STEINBACH, BARBARA G</au><au>HISKES, STEPHANIE K</au><au>FITZSIMMONS, JEFFREY R</au><au>LANIER, LINDA</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Phantom Evaluation of Imaging Modalities for Silicone Breast Implants</atitle><jtitle>Investigative radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Invest Radiol</addtitle><date>1992-10</date><risdate>1992</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>841</spage><epage>846</epage><pages>841-846</pages><issn>0020-9996</issn><eissn>1536-0210</eissn><abstract>RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES.Recent concern regarding possible adverse effects from silicone breast implants has increased the role of radiologists in assessing augmented breasts. The authors compare the commonly available imaging modalities in evaluating the intact silicone implant as well as free silicone in the adjacent tissue. METHODS.A contrast resolution phantom and breast of veal phantom were tested. Fat was used as a reference material. The phantoms were imaged with xeromammography, filmscreen mammography, ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Proton MRI spectroscopy also was performed on fat, silicone, water, and water/gelatin samples. The consensus of two radiologists determined whether free silicone was present. RESULTS.CT and MRI provided the best images of the implant and the free silicone. Several features of MRI were usefulspin-density scans and the fast low-angle shot (FLASH) and fast imaging with steady-state precision (FISP) techniques provided excellent resolution, a consistent chemical shift artifact appeared around the silicone, and frequency selective presaturation techniques resulted in marked suppression of the silicone. CONCLUSION.Additional testing in a more realistic setting, breast coil design, and improvement of various MRI techniques, particularly the frequency selective pre-saturation techniques, all appear promising in evaluating breast implants, the presence of free silicone, and the adjacent tissues.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Lippincott-Raven Publishers</pub><pmid>1399441</pmid><doi>10.1097/00004424-199210000-00015</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0020-9996
ispartof Investigative radiology, 1992-10, Vol.27 (10), p.841-846
issn 0020-9996
1536-0210
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1097_00004424_199210000_00015
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects Breast - anatomy & histology
Female
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Mammaplasty - adverse effects
Mammography
Models, Structural
Prostheses and Implants - adverse effects
Silicones - adverse effects
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Ultrasonography, Mammary
Xeromammography
title Phantom Evaluation of Imaging Modalities for Silicone Breast Implants
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T01%3A42%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmed_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Phantom%20Evaluation%20of%20Imaging%20Modalities%20for%20Silicone%20Breast%20Implants&rft.jtitle=Investigative%20radiology&rft.au=STEINBACH,%20BARBARA%20G&rft.date=1992-10&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=841&rft.epage=846&rft.pages=841-846&rft.issn=0020-9996&rft.eissn=1536-0210&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/00004424-199210000-00015&rft_dat=%3Cpubmed_cross%3E1399441%3C/pubmed_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/1399441&rfr_iscdi=true