Is breast ultrasound a good alternative to magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating implant integrity?
To compare the diagnostic performance of breast ultrasound and breast magnetic resonance imaging and to correlate the findings on the two techniques that are suggestive of implant rupture. We reviewed the images and reports of breast ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging studies done in our diag...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Radiología (English ed.) 2022-03, Vol.64, p.20-27 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 27 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 20 |
| container_title | Radiología (English ed.) |
| container_volume | 64 |
| creator | Secco, G.M. Gutierrez, P.A. Secco, V.L. Chico, M.J. Secco, R.A. Pesce, K.A. |
| description | To compare the diagnostic performance of breast ultrasound and breast magnetic resonance imaging and to correlate the findings on the two techniques that are suggestive of implant rupture.
We reviewed the images and reports of breast ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging studies done in our diagnostic and interventional breast imaging unit to evaluate breast implants in 205 patients between January 2015 and December 2017.
Ultrasound findings were compatible with implant rupture in 87 (42.4%) patients: intracapsular rupture in 44 (21.5%) and intracapsular and extracapsular rupture in 43 (21.0%). Ultrasound yielded 85.2% sensitivity, 89.7% specificity, 86.2% positive predictive value, and 89.0% negative predictive value. Magnetic resonance imaging findings were compatible with implant rupture in 88 (42.9%) patients: intracapsular rupture in 50 (24.4%) and intracapsular and extracapsular rupture in 38 (18.5%). The correlation between positive findings for the location of the rupture on the two imaging techniques was excellent (0.77; p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.rxeng.2020.10.011 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2651689177</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S2173510721000707</els_id><sourcerecordid>2651689177</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c289t-934353ab452f53574cd00f42678dd0033c29bf71872e3eaf7eaba54a1ddec1313</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMotmh_gSA5etmaj93N9iAixY9CwYueQzY7u6Rsk5pki_33praKJ-cyk5d3MjMPQleUTCmh5e1q6j_BdlNG2F6ZEkpP0JhRwbOCEnH6px6hSQgrkqIsaEX4ORrxImdVXvIx6hYB1x5UiHjoo1fBDbbBCnfOpdRH8FZFswUcHV6rzkI0GnsIziqrAZukGdvh1nkMW9UPyZyeZr3plY3Y2AidN3F3f4nOWtUHmBzzBXp_enybv2TL1-fF_GGZaVbNYjbjOS-4qvOCtQUvRK4bQtqclaJqUsW5ZrO6FbQSDDioVoCqVZEr2jSgKaf8At0c_t149zFAiHJtgoY-rQNuCJIlBmU1o0IkKz9YtXcheGjlxqd7_E5SIveQ5Up-Q5Z7yHsxQU5d18cBQ72G5rfnB2ky3B0MkM7cGvAyaAMJVmM86CgbZ_4d8AWjZ4_G</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2651689177</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Is breast ultrasound a good alternative to magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating implant integrity?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Secco, G.M. ; Gutierrez, P.A. ; Secco, V.L. ; Chico, M.J. ; Secco, R.A. ; Pesce, K.A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Secco, G.M. ; Gutierrez, P.A. ; Secco, V.L. ; Chico, M.J. ; Secco, R.A. ; Pesce, K.A.</creatorcontrib><description>To compare the diagnostic performance of breast ultrasound and breast magnetic resonance imaging and to correlate the findings on the two techniques that are suggestive of implant rupture.
We reviewed the images and reports of breast ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging studies done in our diagnostic and interventional breast imaging unit to evaluate breast implants in 205 patients between January 2015 and December 2017.
Ultrasound findings were compatible with implant rupture in 87 (42.4%) patients: intracapsular rupture in 44 (21.5%) and intracapsular and extracapsular rupture in 43 (21.0%). Ultrasound yielded 85.2% sensitivity, 89.7% specificity, 86.2% positive predictive value, and 89.0% negative predictive value. Magnetic resonance imaging findings were compatible with implant rupture in 88 (42.9%) patients: intracapsular rupture in 50 (24.4%) and intracapsular and extracapsular rupture in 38 (18.5%). The correlation between positive findings for the location of the rupture on the two imaging techniques was excellent (0.77; p < 0.0001).
We found high concordance between the two techniques for the detection of intracapsular and extracapsular implant rupture. These results consolidate the use of ultrasound as the first-line imaging technique to evaluate implant integrity in our population; magnetic resonance imaging can be reserved for cases in which the ultrasound diagnosis of implant integrity is uncertain.
El objetivo de este trabajo es evaluar el rendimiento diagnóstico de la ecografía mamaria en comparación con la resonancia magnética mamaria y la correlación entre ambos métodos para la detección de los hallazgos sugestivos de rotura protésica.
En la Sección de Diagnóstico e Intervencionismo mamario, en el período comprendido entre enero de 2015 y diciembre de 2017 se revisaron las imágenes e informes de ecografía y resonancia magnética mamarias con protocolo para evaluación de prótesis, de 205 pacientes.
El estudio ecográfico fue compatible con rotura protésica en 87 (42,43%) pacientes: rotura intracapsular en 44 (21,46%) pacientes y rotura intra- y extracapsular en 43 (20,97%) pacientes. La ecografía demostró una sensibilidad del 85,22% y una especificidad del 89,74%. El valor predictivo positivo (VPP) fue del 86,20% y el valor predictivo negativo (VPN) del 88,98%. La resonancia magnética mostró hallazgos compatibles con rotura protésica en 88 (42,92%) pacientes: 50 (24,39%) pacientes con rotura intracapsular y 38 (18,53%) con rotura intra- y extracapsular. La coincidencia de los hallazgos positivos entre resonancia magnética y ecografía para la localización de rotura arrojó una excelente correlación: 0,77 (p < 0,0001).
Nuestros resultados arrojaron una concordancia alta entre ambos métodos para la detección de rotura intra- y extracapsular de los implantes. Estos resultados consolidan la utilización de la ecografía como primer método de evaluación de integridad protésica en nuestra población, reservando la resonancia magnética para aquellos casos de dudas diagnósticas ecográficas de integridad protésica.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2173-5107</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2173-5107</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.rxeng.2020.10.011</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35428463</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Spain: Elsevier España, S.L.U</publisher><subject>Breast ; Breast implants ; Breast Implants - adverse effects ; Breast/Magnetic resonance imaging ; Female ; Humans ; Implantes mamarios ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods ; Mamario/Resonancia magnética ; Prosthesis Failure ; Rupture ; Ultrasonido ; Ultrasonography ; Ultrasonography, Mammary</subject><ispartof>Radiología (English ed.), 2022-03, Vol.64, p.20-27</ispartof><rights>2020 SERAM</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 SERAM. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c289t-934353ab452f53574cd00f42678dd0033c29bf71872e3eaf7eaba54a1ddec1313</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c289t-934353ab452f53574cd00f42678dd0033c29bf71872e3eaf7eaba54a1ddec1313</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/35428463$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Secco, G.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gutierrez, P.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Secco, V.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chico, M.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Secco, R.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pesce, K.A.</creatorcontrib><title>Is breast ultrasound a good alternative to magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating implant integrity?</title><title>Radiología (English ed.)</title><addtitle>Radiologia (Engl Ed)</addtitle><description>To compare the diagnostic performance of breast ultrasound and breast magnetic resonance imaging and to correlate the findings on the two techniques that are suggestive of implant rupture.
We reviewed the images and reports of breast ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging studies done in our diagnostic and interventional breast imaging unit to evaluate breast implants in 205 patients between January 2015 and December 2017.
Ultrasound findings were compatible with implant rupture in 87 (42.4%) patients: intracapsular rupture in 44 (21.5%) and intracapsular and extracapsular rupture in 43 (21.0%). Ultrasound yielded 85.2% sensitivity, 89.7% specificity, 86.2% positive predictive value, and 89.0% negative predictive value. Magnetic resonance imaging findings were compatible with implant rupture in 88 (42.9%) patients: intracapsular rupture in 50 (24.4%) and intracapsular and extracapsular rupture in 38 (18.5%). The correlation between positive findings for the location of the rupture on the two imaging techniques was excellent (0.77; p < 0.0001).
We found high concordance between the two techniques for the detection of intracapsular and extracapsular implant rupture. These results consolidate the use of ultrasound as the first-line imaging technique to evaluate implant integrity in our population; magnetic resonance imaging can be reserved for cases in which the ultrasound diagnosis of implant integrity is uncertain.
El objetivo de este trabajo es evaluar el rendimiento diagnóstico de la ecografía mamaria en comparación con la resonancia magnética mamaria y la correlación entre ambos métodos para la detección de los hallazgos sugestivos de rotura protésica.
En la Sección de Diagnóstico e Intervencionismo mamario, en el período comprendido entre enero de 2015 y diciembre de 2017 se revisaron las imágenes e informes de ecografía y resonancia magnética mamarias con protocolo para evaluación de prótesis, de 205 pacientes.
El estudio ecográfico fue compatible con rotura protésica en 87 (42,43%) pacientes: rotura intracapsular en 44 (21,46%) pacientes y rotura intra- y extracapsular en 43 (20,97%) pacientes. La ecografía demostró una sensibilidad del 85,22% y una especificidad del 89,74%. El valor predictivo positivo (VPP) fue del 86,20% y el valor predictivo negativo (VPN) del 88,98%. La resonancia magnética mostró hallazgos compatibles con rotura protésica en 88 (42,92%) pacientes: 50 (24,39%) pacientes con rotura intracapsular y 38 (18,53%) con rotura intra- y extracapsular. La coincidencia de los hallazgos positivos entre resonancia magnética y ecografía para la localización de rotura arrojó una excelente correlación: 0,77 (p < 0,0001).
Nuestros resultados arrojaron una concordancia alta entre ambos métodos para la detección de rotura intra- y extracapsular de los implantes. Estos resultados consolidan la utilización de la ecografía como primer método de evaluación de integridad protésica en nuestra población, reservando la resonancia magnética para aquellos casos de dudas diagnósticas ecográficas de integridad protésica.</description><subject>Breast</subject><subject>Breast implants</subject><subject>Breast Implants - adverse effects</subject><subject>Breast/Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Implantes mamarios</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Mamario/Resonancia magnética</subject><subject>Prosthesis Failure</subject><subject>Rupture</subject><subject>Ultrasonido</subject><subject>Ultrasonography</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Mammary</subject><issn>2173-5107</issn><issn>2173-5107</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMotmh_gSA5etmaj93N9iAixY9CwYueQzY7u6Rsk5pki_33praKJ-cyk5d3MjMPQleUTCmh5e1q6j_BdlNG2F6ZEkpP0JhRwbOCEnH6px6hSQgrkqIsaEX4ORrxImdVXvIx6hYB1x5UiHjoo1fBDbbBCnfOpdRH8FZFswUcHV6rzkI0GnsIziqrAZukGdvh1nkMW9UPyZyeZr3plY3Y2AidN3F3f4nOWtUHmBzzBXp_enybv2TL1-fF_GGZaVbNYjbjOS-4qvOCtQUvRK4bQtqclaJqUsW5ZrO6FbQSDDioVoCqVZEr2jSgKaf8At0c_t149zFAiHJtgoY-rQNuCJIlBmU1o0IkKz9YtXcheGjlxqd7_E5SIveQ5Up-Q5Z7yHsxQU5d18cBQ72G5rfnB2ky3B0MkM7cGvAyaAMJVmM86CgbZ_4d8AWjZ4_G</recordid><startdate>202203</startdate><enddate>202203</enddate><creator>Secco, G.M.</creator><creator>Gutierrez, P.A.</creator><creator>Secco, V.L.</creator><creator>Chico, M.J.</creator><creator>Secco, R.A.</creator><creator>Pesce, K.A.</creator><general>Elsevier España, S.L.U</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>202203</creationdate><title>Is breast ultrasound a good alternative to magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating implant integrity?</title><author>Secco, G.M. ; Gutierrez, P.A. ; Secco, V.L. ; Chico, M.J. ; Secco, R.A. ; Pesce, K.A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c289t-934353ab452f53574cd00f42678dd0033c29bf71872e3eaf7eaba54a1ddec1313</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Breast</topic><topic>Breast implants</topic><topic>Breast Implants - adverse effects</topic><topic>Breast/Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Implantes mamarios</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Mamario/Resonancia magnética</topic><topic>Prosthesis Failure</topic><topic>Rupture</topic><topic>Ultrasonido</topic><topic>Ultrasonography</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Mammary</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Secco, G.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gutierrez, P.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Secco, V.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chico, M.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Secco, R.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pesce, K.A.</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>Radiología (English ed.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Secco, G.M.</au><au>Gutierrez, P.A.</au><au>Secco, V.L.</au><au>Chico, M.J.</au><au>Secco, R.A.</au><au>Pesce, K.A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Is breast ultrasound a good alternative to magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating implant integrity?</atitle><jtitle>Radiología (English ed.)</jtitle><addtitle>Radiologia (Engl Ed)</addtitle><date>2022-03</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>64</volume><spage>20</spage><epage>27</epage><pages>20-27</pages><issn>2173-5107</issn><eissn>2173-5107</eissn><abstract>To compare the diagnostic performance of breast ultrasound and breast magnetic resonance imaging and to correlate the findings on the two techniques that are suggestive of implant rupture.
We reviewed the images and reports of breast ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging studies done in our diagnostic and interventional breast imaging unit to evaluate breast implants in 205 patients between January 2015 and December 2017.
Ultrasound findings were compatible with implant rupture in 87 (42.4%) patients: intracapsular rupture in 44 (21.5%) and intracapsular and extracapsular rupture in 43 (21.0%). Ultrasound yielded 85.2% sensitivity, 89.7% specificity, 86.2% positive predictive value, and 89.0% negative predictive value. Magnetic resonance imaging findings were compatible with implant rupture in 88 (42.9%) patients: intracapsular rupture in 50 (24.4%) and intracapsular and extracapsular rupture in 38 (18.5%). The correlation between positive findings for the location of the rupture on the two imaging techniques was excellent (0.77; p < 0.0001).
We found high concordance between the two techniques for the detection of intracapsular and extracapsular implant rupture. These results consolidate the use of ultrasound as the first-line imaging technique to evaluate implant integrity in our population; magnetic resonance imaging can be reserved for cases in which the ultrasound diagnosis of implant integrity is uncertain.
El objetivo de este trabajo es evaluar el rendimiento diagnóstico de la ecografía mamaria en comparación con la resonancia magnética mamaria y la correlación entre ambos métodos para la detección de los hallazgos sugestivos de rotura protésica.
En la Sección de Diagnóstico e Intervencionismo mamario, en el período comprendido entre enero de 2015 y diciembre de 2017 se revisaron las imágenes e informes de ecografía y resonancia magnética mamarias con protocolo para evaluación de prótesis, de 205 pacientes.
El estudio ecográfico fue compatible con rotura protésica en 87 (42,43%) pacientes: rotura intracapsular en 44 (21,46%) pacientes y rotura intra- y extracapsular en 43 (20,97%) pacientes. La ecografía demostró una sensibilidad del 85,22% y una especificidad del 89,74%. El valor predictivo positivo (VPP) fue del 86,20% y el valor predictivo negativo (VPN) del 88,98%. La resonancia magnética mostró hallazgos compatibles con rotura protésica en 88 (42,92%) pacientes: 50 (24,39%) pacientes con rotura intracapsular y 38 (18,53%) con rotura intra- y extracapsular. La coincidencia de los hallazgos positivos entre resonancia magnética y ecografía para la localización de rotura arrojó una excelente correlación: 0,77 (p < 0,0001).
Nuestros resultados arrojaron una concordancia alta entre ambos métodos para la detección de rotura intra- y extracapsular de los implantes. Estos resultados consolidan la utilización de la ecografía como primer método de evaluación de integridad protésica en nuestra población, reservando la resonancia magnética para aquellos casos de dudas diagnósticas ecográficas de integridad protésica.</abstract><cop>Spain</cop><pub>Elsevier España, S.L.U</pub><pmid>35428463</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.rxeng.2020.10.011</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2173-5107 |
| ispartof | Radiología (English ed.), 2022-03, Vol.64, p.20-27 |
| issn | 2173-5107 2173-5107 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2651689177 |
| source | MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Breast Breast implants Breast Implants - adverse effects Breast/Magnetic resonance imaging Female Humans Implantes mamarios Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods Mamario/Resonancia magnética Prosthesis Failure Rupture Ultrasonido Ultrasonography Ultrasonography, Mammary |
| title | Is breast ultrasound a good alternative to magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating implant integrity? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T08%3A42%3A27IST&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=Is%20breast%20ultrasound%20a%20good%20alternative%20to%20magnetic%20resonance%20imaging%20for%20evaluating%20implant%20integrity?&rft.jtitle=Radiolog%C3%ADa%20(English%20ed.)&rft.au=Secco,%20G.M.&rft.date=2022-03&rft.volume=64&rft.spage=20&rft.epage=27&rft.pages=20-27&rft.issn=2173-5107&rft.eissn=2173-5107&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.rxeng.2020.10.011&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2651689177%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=2651689177&rft_id=info:pmid/35428463&rft_els_id=S2173510721000707&rfr_iscdi=true |