Accuracy of Ultrasonography in Breast Implant Rupture Diagnosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Breast augmentation is the most common aesthetic operation performed in the United States and worldwide; 1,862,506 breast augmentation procedures were performed in 2018, an increase of 27.6 percent compared to 2014 data. In the present study, the authors performed a systematic review to identify the...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963) 2021-11, Vol.148 (5), p.939-947 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 947 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 939 |
| container_title | Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963) |
| container_volume | 148 |
| creator | Lacerda Macedo, Ana Cristina Carvalho, George Uggioni, Maria L. R. Bavaresco, Daniela V. Simon, Carla S. Cruz, Mateus Silva, Fábio Rosa, Maria I. |
| description | Breast augmentation is the most common aesthetic operation performed in the United States and worldwide; 1,862,506 breast augmentation procedures were performed in 2018, an increase of 27.6 percent compared to 2014 data.
In the present study, the authors performed a systematic review to identify the accuracy of ultrasonography for diagnosing breast prosthesis rupture. Studies in which the ultrasound diagnostic test was compared to a surgical finding as a reference standard were reviewed.
As a result, 20 primary studies were included in the analyses, with a total of 1987 patients and 3297 prostheses. The use of ultrasound for diagnosis of breast prosthesis rupture presented the following results: pooled sensitivity, 73.7 percent (95 percent CI, 70.2 to 77.1 percent); pooled specificity, 87.8 percent (95 percent CI, 86.5 to 89.0); area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.7762; diagnostic odds ratio, 11.04 (95 percent CI, 5.79 to 21.08).
This study supports that ultrasound of breast prostheses is an adequate tool in the diagnosis of rupture. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008408 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2571055639</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2571055639</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3521-f00673724f4dbea06c5a220cfe520d9279b4d684db3589ac2322e7f15e80e42b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkE1PHDEMhqMKVJZt_wFCOXIZ6jjJfPS2QEuRQKClnEfZjIcdmC-SDKv59wxd2iJ8sWy_fm09jB0IOBaQJd9ulrfH8C5SBeknNhMas0ihwh02A5AYCdC4x_a9fwAQiYz1Z7Ynlcp0JuSMFQtrB2fsyLuS39XBGd-13b0z_XrkVctPHBkf-EXT16YNfDn0YXDEzypz33a-8t_57egDNSZUli_puaINN23BryiYaNGaepxEX9huaWpPX9_ynN39_PH79Fd0eX1-cbq4jKzUKKISIE5kgqpUxYoMxFYbRLAlaYQiwyRbqSJOp6HUaWYsSkRKSqEpBVK4knN2tPXtXfc0kA95U3lL9fQ6dYPPUScTDR3LbJKqrdS6zntHZd67qjFuzAXkr3zziW_-ke-0dvh2YVg1VPxb-gv0v--mqwM5_1gPG3L5mkwd1n_8Yi1VhIBCiKmKXltCvgDcuYWH</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2571055639</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Accuracy of Ultrasonography in Breast Implant Rupture Diagnosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Lacerda Macedo, Ana Cristina ; Carvalho, George ; Uggioni, Maria L. R. ; Bavaresco, Daniela V. ; Simon, Carla S. ; Cruz, Mateus ; Silva, Fábio ; Rosa, Maria I.</creator><creatorcontrib>Lacerda Macedo, Ana Cristina ; Carvalho, George ; Uggioni, Maria L. R. ; Bavaresco, Daniela V. ; Simon, Carla S. ; Cruz, Mateus ; Silva, Fábio ; Rosa, Maria I.</creatorcontrib><description>Breast augmentation is the most common aesthetic operation performed in the United States and worldwide; 1,862,506 breast augmentation procedures were performed in 2018, an increase of 27.6 percent compared to 2014 data.
In the present study, the authors performed a systematic review to identify the accuracy of ultrasonography for diagnosing breast prosthesis rupture. Studies in which the ultrasound diagnostic test was compared to a surgical finding as a reference standard were reviewed.
As a result, 20 primary studies were included in the analyses, with a total of 1987 patients and 3297 prostheses. The use of ultrasound for diagnosis of breast prosthesis rupture presented the following results: pooled sensitivity, 73.7 percent (95 percent CI, 70.2 to 77.1 percent); pooled specificity, 87.8 percent (95 percent CI, 86.5 to 89.0); area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.7762; diagnostic odds ratio, 11.04 (95 percent CI, 5.79 to 21.08).
This study supports that ultrasound of breast prostheses is an adequate tool in the diagnosis of rupture.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0032-1052</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1529-4242</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008408</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34495913</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</publisher><subject>Breast - diagnostic imaging ; Breast Diseases - diagnosis ; Breast Diseases - etiology ; Breast Diseases - surgery ; Breast Implantation - adverse effects ; Breast Implantation - instrumentation ; Breast Implants - adverse effects ; Device Removal - statistics & numerical data ; Female ; Humans ; Prosthesis Failure ; ROC Curve ; Ultrasonography - statistics & numerical data</subject><ispartof>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963), 2021-11, Vol.148 (5), p.939-947</ispartof><rights>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3521-f00673724f4dbea06c5a220cfe520d9279b4d684db3589ac2322e7f15e80e42b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3521-f00673724f4dbea06c5a220cfe520d9279b4d684db3589ac2322e7f15e80e42b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34495913$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lacerda Macedo, Ana Cristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carvalho, George</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uggioni, Maria L. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bavaresco, Daniela V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simon, Carla S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cruz, Mateus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Silva, Fábio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosa, Maria I.</creatorcontrib><title>Accuracy of Ultrasonography in Breast Implant Rupture Diagnosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</title><title>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)</title><addtitle>Plast Reconstr Surg</addtitle><description>Breast augmentation is the most common aesthetic operation performed in the United States and worldwide; 1,862,506 breast augmentation procedures were performed in 2018, an increase of 27.6 percent compared to 2014 data.
In the present study, the authors performed a systematic review to identify the accuracy of ultrasonography for diagnosing breast prosthesis rupture. Studies in which the ultrasound diagnostic test was compared to a surgical finding as a reference standard were reviewed.
As a result, 20 primary studies were included in the analyses, with a total of 1987 patients and 3297 prostheses. The use of ultrasound for diagnosis of breast prosthesis rupture presented the following results: pooled sensitivity, 73.7 percent (95 percent CI, 70.2 to 77.1 percent); pooled specificity, 87.8 percent (95 percent CI, 86.5 to 89.0); area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.7762; diagnostic odds ratio, 11.04 (95 percent CI, 5.79 to 21.08).
This study supports that ultrasound of breast prostheses is an adequate tool in the diagnosis of rupture.</description><subject>Breast - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Breast Diseases - diagnosis</subject><subject>Breast Diseases - etiology</subject><subject>Breast Diseases - surgery</subject><subject>Breast Implantation - adverse effects</subject><subject>Breast Implantation - instrumentation</subject><subject>Breast Implants - adverse effects</subject><subject>Device Removal - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Prosthesis Failure</subject><subject>ROC Curve</subject><subject>Ultrasonography - statistics & numerical data</subject><issn>0032-1052</issn><issn>1529-4242</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkE1PHDEMhqMKVJZt_wFCOXIZ6jjJfPS2QEuRQKClnEfZjIcdmC-SDKv59wxd2iJ8sWy_fm09jB0IOBaQJd9ulrfH8C5SBeknNhMas0ihwh02A5AYCdC4x_a9fwAQiYz1Z7Ynlcp0JuSMFQtrB2fsyLuS39XBGd-13b0z_XrkVctPHBkf-EXT16YNfDn0YXDEzypz33a-8t_57egDNSZUli_puaINN23BryiYaNGaepxEX9huaWpPX9_ynN39_PH79Fd0eX1-cbq4jKzUKKISIE5kgqpUxYoMxFYbRLAlaYQiwyRbqSJOp6HUaWYsSkRKSqEpBVK4knN2tPXtXfc0kA95U3lL9fQ6dYPPUScTDR3LbJKqrdS6zntHZd67qjFuzAXkr3zziW_-ke-0dvh2YVg1VPxb-gv0v--mqwM5_1gPG3L5mkwd1n_8Yi1VhIBCiKmKXltCvgDcuYWH</recordid><startdate>20211101</startdate><enddate>20211101</enddate><creator>Lacerda Macedo, Ana Cristina</creator><creator>Carvalho, George</creator><creator>Uggioni, Maria L. R.</creator><creator>Bavaresco, Daniela V.</creator><creator>Simon, Carla S.</creator><creator>Cruz, Mateus</creator><creator>Silva, Fábio</creator><creator>Rosa, Maria I.</creator><general>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</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><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20211101</creationdate><title>Accuracy of Ultrasonography in Breast Implant Rupture Diagnosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</title><author>Lacerda Macedo, Ana Cristina ; Carvalho, George ; Uggioni, Maria L. R. ; Bavaresco, Daniela V. ; Simon, Carla S. ; Cruz, Mateus ; Silva, Fábio ; Rosa, Maria I.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3521-f00673724f4dbea06c5a220cfe520d9279b4d684db3589ac2322e7f15e80e42b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Breast - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Breast Diseases - diagnosis</topic><topic>Breast Diseases - etiology</topic><topic>Breast Diseases - surgery</topic><topic>Breast Implantation - adverse effects</topic><topic>Breast Implantation - instrumentation</topic><topic>Breast Implants - adverse effects</topic><topic>Device Removal - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Prosthesis Failure</topic><topic>ROC Curve</topic><topic>Ultrasonography - statistics & numerical data</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lacerda Macedo, Ana Cristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carvalho, George</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uggioni, Maria L. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bavaresco, Daniela V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simon, Carla S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cruz, Mateus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Silva, Fábio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosa, Maria I.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lacerda Macedo, Ana Cristina</au><au>Carvalho, George</au><au>Uggioni, Maria L. R.</au><au>Bavaresco, Daniela V.</au><au>Simon, Carla S.</au><au>Cruz, Mateus</au><au>Silva, Fábio</au><au>Rosa, Maria I.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Accuracy of Ultrasonography in Breast Implant Rupture Diagnosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</atitle><jtitle>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)</jtitle><addtitle>Plast Reconstr Surg</addtitle><date>2021-11-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>148</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>939</spage><epage>947</epage><pages>939-947</pages><issn>0032-1052</issn><eissn>1529-4242</eissn><abstract>Breast augmentation is the most common aesthetic operation performed in the United States and worldwide; 1,862,506 breast augmentation procedures were performed in 2018, an increase of 27.6 percent compared to 2014 data.
In the present study, the authors performed a systematic review to identify the accuracy of ultrasonography for diagnosing breast prosthesis rupture. Studies in which the ultrasound diagnostic test was compared to a surgical finding as a reference standard were reviewed.
As a result, 20 primary studies were included in the analyses, with a total of 1987 patients and 3297 prostheses. The use of ultrasound for diagnosis of breast prosthesis rupture presented the following results: pooled sensitivity, 73.7 percent (95 percent CI, 70.2 to 77.1 percent); pooled specificity, 87.8 percent (95 percent CI, 86.5 to 89.0); area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.7762; diagnostic odds ratio, 11.04 (95 percent CI, 5.79 to 21.08).
This study supports that ultrasound of breast prostheses is an adequate tool in the diagnosis of rupture.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</pub><pmid>34495913</pmid><doi>10.1097/PRS.0000000000008408</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0032-1052 |
| ispartof | Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963), 2021-11, Vol.148 (5), p.939-947 |
| issn | 0032-1052 1529-4242 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2571055639 |
| source | MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete |
| subjects | Breast - diagnostic imaging Breast Diseases - diagnosis Breast Diseases - etiology Breast Diseases - surgery Breast Implantation - adverse effects Breast Implantation - instrumentation Breast Implants - adverse effects Device Removal - statistics & numerical data Female Humans Prosthesis Failure ROC Curve Ultrasonography - statistics & numerical data |
| title | Accuracy of Ultrasonography in Breast Implant Rupture Diagnosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T21%3A42%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Accuracy%20of%20Ultrasonography%20in%20Breast%20Implant%20Rupture%20Diagnosis:%20Systematic%20Review%20and%20Meta-Analysis&rft.jtitle=Plastic%20and%20reconstructive%20surgery%20(1963)&rft.au=Lacerda%20Macedo,%20Ana%20Cristina&rft.date=2021-11-01&rft.volume=148&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=939&rft.epage=947&rft.pages=939-947&rft.issn=0032-1052&rft.eissn=1529-4242&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/PRS.0000000000008408&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2571055639%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2571055639&rft_id=info:pmid/34495913&rfr_iscdi=true |