The diagnosis of silicone breast-implant rupture: clinical findings compared with findings at magnetic resonance imaging

[Guest guest]

Thanks Ilena!

>

>

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstra\

ct & list_uids=15900139

Ann Plast Surg. 2005 Jun;54(6):583-9. Related

Articles, Links

> The diagnosis of silicone breast-implant rupture:

> clinical findings compared with findings at magnetic

> resonance imaging.

>

> Holmich LR, Fryzek JP, Kjoller K, Breiting VB,

> nsen A, Krag C, McLaughlin JK.

>

> Danish Cancer Society, Institute of Cancer

> Epidemiology, Copenhagen, Denmark. Lisbet@...

>

> The objective was to evaluate the usefulness of

> clinical examination in the evaluation of

> breast-implant integrity, using the diagnosis at

> magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the " gold

> standard. " Fifty-five women with 109 implants

> underwent a breast examination either just before or

> shortly after an MRI examination. Twenty-four of 109

> implants were clinically diagnosed with possible

> rupture or rupture. Eighteen of the 24 implants were

> ruptured according to the MRI examination (75%).

> Eighty-five implants were clinically classified as

> intact, and 43 of these were actually ruptured at

> MRI (51%). The sensitivity of the clinical

> examination for diagnosing rupture was thus 30% and

> the specificity 88%. The positive predictive value

> of a clinical diagnosis of rupture was 75%, and the

> negative predictive value was 49%. In this study, we

> found that when a clinical examination is used as

> the sole diagnostic tool to identify implant

> rupture, neither the sensitivity nor the specificity

> is acceptable.

>

> PMID: 15900139 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]