PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10101662

Imaging breasts with silicone implants.

Abstract

Over the last two decades, the use of breast implants both for breast augmentation and for breast reconstruction following mastectomy has increased substantially. It is estimated that around two million women have undergone breast augmentation, while hundreds of thousands have had breast reconstruction surgery. Different types of material have been used for breast implants, but silicone gel implants have been the dominating implant type. Many implants can lead to complications, such as hardening and rupture, and may therefore need in vivo evaluation by imaging, particularly if they lead to clinical symptoms. They can also pose problems in the assessment of surrounding breast tissue by conventional mammography. In this respect, imaging modalities such as ultrasound, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging offer greater possibilities to assess a failing implant, as well as surrounding breast tissue. Several factors, mainly of a psychological nature, lead to requests for breast implants. In this review article, only the imaging aspects of breasts with silicone gel implants will be dealt with. Each modality is concisely presented with its possibilities and limitations.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

E Azavedo, B Boné. 1999. Imaging breasts with silicone implants.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300050679

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Experience with transumbilical breast augmentation.

Transumbilical breast augmentation (TUBA), an endoscopicassisted procedure in which saline breast prostheses are inserted through the umbilicus, is a patient-driven, frequently performed procedure that remains controversial. The author describes the operative technique and results in 90 patients who underwent TUBA between October 1996 and July 2000 by the same surgeon in a community practice. A total of 85 patients underwent submammary TUBA and 5 patients underwent submuscular TUBA. Seventy patients were available for follow-up. Postoperative results of the 70 patients were graded as very good in 56 (80%), good in 12 (17%), and fair in 2 (2.9%). Complications were conversion to an open approach in 1 patient and an accidental submuscular entry into the pocket in 1 patient. There were four capsular contractures (5.7%), 5 patients (7.1%) were reoperated: 2 for capsulectomies, 1 for implant buckling, 1 for scar revision, and 1 for removal of the implants. There were no implant ruptures, hematomas, or infections. Advantages of TUBA include minimal scarring, remote incision, short operating time, low capsular contracture rate, and rapid recovery. These results of this evolving procedure suggest that in select patients TUBA provides a high level of patient satisfaction and low complication rates. As TUBA techniques for submuscular placement continue to develop, more patients may become TUBA candidates.

Breast Implantation↗