Clinical impact of breast implant magnetic resonance imaging
Magnetic resonance imaging has become the state-of-art technique to diagnose the loss of silicone gel-filled mammary implant integrity (rupture, gel leak). In a series of 39 patients considering implant removal (40 procedures, 74 devices), the impact of magnetic resonance imaging on the decisions ma...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Annals of plastic surgery 1994-09, Vol.33 (3), p.241-246 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 246 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 241 |
container_title | Annals of plastic surgery |
container_volume | 33 |
creator | DOBKE, M. K MIDDLETON, M. S |
description | Magnetic resonance imaging has become the state-of-art technique to diagnose the loss of silicone gel-filled mammary implant integrity (rupture, gel leak). In a series of 39 patients considering implant removal (40 procedures, 74 devices), the impact of magnetic resonance imaging on the decisions made by the patient and surgeon was examined. In this selected group of patients, implant rupture or gel leak was found in 17 patients (16 grossly ruptured devices and 7 with gel leak). In 9 (53%) of these patients, magnetic resonance imaging was the decisive factor leading to the request for explantation by the patient. Diagnosis of implant rupture based on history and physical examination was made in 4 patients (confirmed in 3 and negated by magnetic resonance imaging and intraoperatively in 1). In 10 of the 14 remaining patients (26%) with "unexpected" loss of implant integrity (negative history and physical examination), magnetic resonance imaging evidence was the decisive factor for advising explantation by the surgeon. Negative magnetic resonance imaging results did not influence the patient's or surgeon's decisions. Magnetic resonance imaging appears to be a sensitive and specific technique, and there were no false-negative and one false-positive (gel-leak diagnosis) findings in this series. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1097/00000637-199409000-00002 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_76871295</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>76871295</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c339t-9614007989f1f8d99f92d89f68a7a6c6f2111e877e33f8d1b03a501ef87758be3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kEtLxDAUhYMo4zj6E4QuxF313qbNA9zI4AsG3Og6pJlkiPQxJu3Cf2_q1Mkm3HPOffARkiHcIUh-D9NjlOcoZQkyFfmkFCdkiRVlOeUgTskSsBQ5h5Kek4sYvwCwECVbkAWXopKVXJKHdeM7b3ST-XavzZD1LquD1XGYhEZ3Q9bqXWcHb7JgY9_pzthk6Z3vdpfkzOkm2qv5X5HP56eP9Wu-eX95Wz9uckOpHHLJsARIK6VDJ7ZSOllsU8GE5poZ5gpEtIJzS2nysQaqK0DrklSJ2tIVuT3M3Yf-e7RxUK2PxjbpPNuPUXEmOBaySkFxCJrQxxisU_uQbg0_CkFN4NQ_OHUE9ycVqfV63jHWrd0eG2dSyb-ZfR0TLhcSCB-PsbKAEgSjv7eTdDw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>76871295</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Clinical impact of breast implant magnetic resonance imaging</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>DOBKE, M. K ; MIDDLETON, M. S</creator><creatorcontrib>DOBKE, M. K ; MIDDLETON, M. S</creatorcontrib><description>Magnetic resonance imaging has become the state-of-art technique to diagnose the loss of silicone gel-filled mammary implant integrity (rupture, gel leak). In a series of 39 patients considering implant removal (40 procedures, 74 devices), the impact of magnetic resonance imaging on the decisions made by the patient and surgeon was examined. In this selected group of patients, implant rupture or gel leak was found in 17 patients (16 grossly ruptured devices and 7 with gel leak). In 9 (53%) of these patients, magnetic resonance imaging was the decisive factor leading to the request for explantation by the patient. Diagnosis of implant rupture based on history and physical examination was made in 4 patients (confirmed in 3 and negated by magnetic resonance imaging and intraoperatively in 1). In 10 of the 14 remaining patients (26%) with "unexpected" loss of implant integrity (negative history and physical examination), magnetic resonance imaging evidence was the decisive factor for advising explantation by the surgeon. Negative magnetic resonance imaging results did not influence the patient's or surgeon's decisions. Magnetic resonance imaging appears to be a sensitive and specific technique, and there were no false-negative and one false-positive (gel-leak diagnosis) findings in this series.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0148-7043</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1536-3708</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/00000637-199409000-00002</identifier><identifier>PMID: 7985959</identifier><identifier>CODEN: APCSD4</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hagerstown, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</publisher><subject>Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Equipment Failure ; Female ; Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Mammaplasty - methods ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Prostheses and Implants ; Rupture, Spontaneous ; Silicone Elastomers - therapeutic use ; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases ; Surgery of the genital tract and mammary gland</subject><ispartof>Annals of plastic surgery, 1994-09, Vol.33 (3), p.241-246</ispartof><rights>1994 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c339t-9614007989f1f8d99f92d89f68a7a6c6f2111e877e33f8d1b03a501ef87758be3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=4204086$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7985959$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>DOBKE, M. K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MIDDLETON, M. S</creatorcontrib><title>Clinical impact of breast implant magnetic resonance imaging</title><title>Annals of plastic surgery</title><addtitle>Ann Plast Surg</addtitle><description>Magnetic resonance imaging has become the state-of-art technique to diagnose the loss of silicone gel-filled mammary implant integrity (rupture, gel leak). In a series of 39 patients considering implant removal (40 procedures, 74 devices), the impact of magnetic resonance imaging on the decisions made by the patient and surgeon was examined. In this selected group of patients, implant rupture or gel leak was found in 17 patients (16 grossly ruptured devices and 7 with gel leak). In 9 (53%) of these patients, magnetic resonance imaging was the decisive factor leading to the request for explantation by the patient. Diagnosis of implant rupture based on history and physical examination was made in 4 patients (confirmed in 3 and negated by magnetic resonance imaging and intraoperatively in 1). In 10 of the 14 remaining patients (26%) with "unexpected" loss of implant integrity (negative history and physical examination), magnetic resonance imaging evidence was the decisive factor for advising explantation by the surgeon. Negative magnetic resonance imaging results did not influence the patient's or surgeon's decisions. Magnetic resonance imaging appears to be a sensitive and specific technique, and there were no false-negative and one false-positive (gel-leak diagnosis) findings in this series.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Equipment Failure</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Mammaplasty - methods</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Prostheses and Implants</subject><subject>Rupture, Spontaneous</subject><subject>Silicone Elastomers - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</subject><subject>Surgery of the genital tract and mammary gland</subject><issn>0148-7043</issn><issn>1536-3708</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1994</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kEtLxDAUhYMo4zj6E4QuxF313qbNA9zI4AsG3Og6pJlkiPQxJu3Cf2_q1Mkm3HPOffARkiHcIUh-D9NjlOcoZQkyFfmkFCdkiRVlOeUgTskSsBQ5h5Kek4sYvwCwECVbkAWXopKVXJKHdeM7b3ST-XavzZD1LquD1XGYhEZ3Q9bqXWcHb7JgY9_pzthk6Z3vdpfkzOkm2qv5X5HP56eP9Wu-eX95Wz9uckOpHHLJsARIK6VDJ7ZSOllsU8GE5poZ5gpEtIJzS2nysQaqK0DrklSJ2tIVuT3M3Yf-e7RxUK2PxjbpPNuPUXEmOBaySkFxCJrQxxisU_uQbg0_CkFN4NQ_OHUE9ycVqfV63jHWrd0eG2dSyb-ZfR0TLhcSCB-PsbKAEgSjv7eTdDw</recordid><startdate>19940901</startdate><enddate>19940901</enddate><creator>DOBKE, M. K</creator><creator>MIDDLETON, M. S</creator><general>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</general><scope>IQODW</scope><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>19940901</creationdate><title>Clinical impact of breast implant magnetic resonance imaging</title><author>DOBKE, M. K ; MIDDLETON, M. S</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c339t-9614007989f1f8d99f92d89f68a7a6c6f2111e877e33f8d1b03a501ef87758be3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1994</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Equipment Failure</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Mammaplasty - methods</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Prostheses and Implants</topic><topic>Rupture, Spontaneous</topic><topic>Silicone Elastomers - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</topic><topic>Surgery of the genital tract and mammary gland</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>DOBKE, M. K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MIDDLETON, M. S</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><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>Annals of plastic surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>DOBKE, M. K</au><au>MIDDLETON, M. S</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Clinical impact of breast implant magnetic resonance imaging</atitle><jtitle>Annals of plastic surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Ann Plast Surg</addtitle><date>1994-09-01</date><risdate>1994</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>241</spage><epage>246</epage><pages>241-246</pages><issn>0148-7043</issn><eissn>1536-3708</eissn><coden>APCSD4</coden><abstract>Magnetic resonance imaging has become the state-of-art technique to diagnose the loss of silicone gel-filled mammary implant integrity (rupture, gel leak). In a series of 39 patients considering implant removal (40 procedures, 74 devices), the impact of magnetic resonance imaging on the decisions made by the patient and surgeon was examined. In this selected group of patients, implant rupture or gel leak was found in 17 patients (16 grossly ruptured devices and 7 with gel leak). In 9 (53%) of these patients, magnetic resonance imaging was the decisive factor leading to the request for explantation by the patient. Diagnosis of implant rupture based on history and physical examination was made in 4 patients (confirmed in 3 and negated by magnetic resonance imaging and intraoperatively in 1). In 10 of the 14 remaining patients (26%) with "unexpected" loss of implant integrity (negative history and physical examination), magnetic resonance imaging evidence was the decisive factor for advising explantation by the surgeon. Negative magnetic resonance imaging results did not influence the patient's or surgeon's decisions. Magnetic resonance imaging appears to be a sensitive and specific technique, and there were no false-negative and one false-positive (gel-leak diagnosis) findings in this series.</abstract><cop>Hagerstown, MD</cop><pub>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</pub><pmid>7985959</pmid><doi>10.1097/00000637-199409000-00002</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0148-7043 |
ispartof | Annals of plastic surgery, 1994-09, Vol.33 (3), p.241-246 |
issn | 0148-7043 1536-3708 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_76871295 |
source | MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete |
subjects | Adult Biological and medical sciences Equipment Failure Female Humans Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mammaplasty - methods Medical sciences Middle Aged Prostheses and Implants Rupture, Spontaneous Silicone Elastomers - therapeutic use Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases Surgery of the genital tract and mammary gland |
title | Clinical impact of breast implant magnetic resonance imaging |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T19%3A59%3A41IST&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=Clinical%20impact%20of%20breast%20implant%20magnetic%20resonance%20imaging&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20plastic%20surgery&rft.au=DOBKE,%20M.%20K&rft.date=1994-09-01&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=241&rft.epage=246&rft.pages=241-246&rft.issn=0148-7043&rft.eissn=1536-3708&rft.coden=APCSD4&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/00000637-199409000-00002&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E76871295%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=76871295&rft_id=info:pmid/7985959&rfr_iscdi=true |