BREAST IMPLANT EVALUATION: PITFALL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

2003 ◽  
Vol 111 (1) ◽  
pp. 507-508 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. M. Abenavoli ◽  
R. Corelli ◽  
L. Giordano
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Breast Implant ◽  
Resonance Imaging

Comparative Study of Breast Implant Rupture Using Mammography, Sonography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Correlation with Surgical Findings

2008 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 532-537 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Di Benedetto ◽  
Sara Cecchini ◽  
Luca Grassetti ◽  
Silvia Baldassarre ◽  
Gianluca Valeri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Breast Implant ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Implant Rupture ◽  
Breast Implant Rupture

scholarly journals A review of data in medical request and the patient questionnaire for magnetic resonance evaluation of silicone breast implants

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 465-469
Author(s):  
Jaime Anger ◽  
Pablo Eduardo Elias ◽  
Paula de Camargo Moraes ◽  
Nelson Hamerschlak
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Breast Implant ◽  
Aesthetic Surgery ◽  
Patient Questionnaire ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Implant Surgery ◽  
Surgery Patient ◽  
The Mean

ABSTRACT Objective: To analyze the quality and quantity of data in the questionnaires and in request forms for magnetic resonance imaging. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted with data from 300 medical records. The research used the following data from the questionnaires: patient age, reason for the magnetic resonance imaging, reason for placing the breast implant, report of any signs or symptoms, time elapsed since surgery to place the current breast implant, replacement implant surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation therapy treatments. From the magnetic resonance imaging request forms, information about the breast implant, the implant placement surgery, patient clinical information and ordering physician specialty were verified. Results: The mean age of patients was 48.8 years, and the mean time elapsed since breast implant surgery was 5 years. A total of 60% of women in the sample were submitted to aesthetic surgery, while 23.7% were submitted to chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy. In the request forms, 23.7% of physicians added some piece of information about the patient, whereas 2.3% of them informed the type of implant and 5.2% informed about the surgery. Conclusion: The amount of information in the magnetic resonance imaging request forms is very limited, and this may hinder quality of radiological reports. Institutional and technological measures should be implemented to encourage the requesting physicians and radiologists to share information.

scholarly journals Application of Breast Ultrasound Elastography to Differentiate Intracapsular Collection from Silicone-Induced Granuloma of Breast Implant Capsule Complementarily to Contrast-Enhanced Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 117822341773799 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo de Faria Castro Fleury ◽  
Ana Claudia Gianini ◽  
Veronica Ayres ◽  
Luciana C Ramalho ◽  
Decio Roveda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Contrast Enhancement ◽  
Breast Implant ◽  
Breast Mri ◽  
Breast Implants ◽  
Ultrasound Elastography ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Mri Findings ◽  
Solid Lesions

Background: To determine whether there is correlation between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings and breast elastography to differentiate seroma/hematoma from silicone-induced granuloma of breast implant capsule (SIGBIC). Methods: Prospective study of 99 patients with breast implants submitted to breast MRI during the period from February 1 to May 1, 2017. Patients who present MRI findings of seroma/hematoma or SIGBIC were submitted to a complementary ultrasound elastography study to evaluate the correlation of the results. The criteria adopted for the diagnosis of granuloma by MRI were heterogeneous hypersignal in the T2-weighted sequences, late contrast enhancement, and black drop sign. Lesions that did not enhance after the use of contrast were considered as seroma/hematoma. By elastography, the results were considered positive for granuloma when presented as hard lesions, whereas seroma/hematoma presented as soft lesions. Results: Of the 99 patients evaluated, 15 were included in the study. Of the 15 patients, 9 had solid intracapsular MRI masses, whereas 6 presented collections without contrast enhancement. The complementary elastography study showed correlation with MRI results in all cases of SIGBIC and seroma/hematoma, being elastography able to differentiate lesions from solid to cystic. Conclusions: Elastography of intracapsular masses in breast implants presented results compatible with those found by MRI to differentiate solid lesions from collections.

Measurement of Breast Implant Volume with Magnetic Resonance Imaging

1995 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 348-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikhaill Mineyev ◽  
David Kramer ◽  
Leon Kaufman ◽  
Joseph Carlson ◽  
Steven Frankel
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Breast Implant ◽  
Resonance Imaging
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document