Dedicated Ultrasonography Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Breast Implant Evaluation, Initial Study.

IF 1.3 Q4 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Medical Devices-Evidence and Research Pub Date : 2025-03-14 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/MDER.S503466
Eduardo De Faria Castro Fleury, Michele Rodrigues da Silva Junqueira, Tiago Sarmet Esteves Teixeira, Pryscilla Alves Ferreira, Giulia Matheus E Castro, Bruna Aguiar Portugal Viotti
{"title":"Dedicated Ultrasonography Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Breast Implant Evaluation, Initial Study.","authors":"Eduardo De Faria Castro Fleury, Michele Rodrigues da Silva Junqueira, Tiago Sarmet Esteves Teixeira, Pryscilla Alves Ferreira, Giulia Matheus E Castro, Bruna Aguiar Portugal Viotti","doi":"10.2147/MDER.S503466","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Describe the role of dedicated ultrasound in evaluating breast implants compared to breast magnetic resonance.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A prospective observational study was conducted in a single center to evaluate breast implant complications in patients referred to breast magnetic resonance (MRI) scan. All patients who had breast implants submitted to MRI scan were invited to a complementary dedicated ultrasound (US) evaluation of the breast implants. The implant changes were classified following a dedicated protocol. The classifiers used to evaluate the implant include evaluation of implant surface (shell), implant internal content homogeneity, fibrous capsule, intracapsular space, pericapsular space, and axillary extension.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Preliminary results included evaluating 29 consecutive patients who underwent MRI. Twenty-nine patients with 49 implants were included in the study. The US showed a superior ability to assess the internal contents of the implants, the implant surface, and the intracapsular contents. There were no significant statistical differences in evaluating macro changes such as implant location, intracapsular collection, and radio-frequency identification (RFID) presence. MRI was superior to the US in classifying the fibrous capsule type.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>US of silicone implants can be used as an alternative to MRI to evaluate implant complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":47140,"journal":{"name":"Medical Devices-Evidence and Research","volume":"18 ","pages":"177-189"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11920629/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Devices-Evidence and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S503466","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: Describe the role of dedicated ultrasound in evaluating breast implants compared to breast magnetic resonance.

Materials and methods: A prospective observational study was conducted in a single center to evaluate breast implant complications in patients referred to breast magnetic resonance (MRI) scan. All patients who had breast implants submitted to MRI scan were invited to a complementary dedicated ultrasound (US) evaluation of the breast implants. The implant changes were classified following a dedicated protocol. The classifiers used to evaluate the implant include evaluation of implant surface (shell), implant internal content homogeneity, fibrous capsule, intracapsular space, pericapsular space, and axillary extension.

Results: Preliminary results included evaluating 29 consecutive patients who underwent MRI. Twenty-nine patients with 49 implants were included in the study. The US showed a superior ability to assess the internal contents of the implants, the implant surface, and the intracapsular contents. There were no significant statistical differences in evaluating macro changes such as implant location, intracapsular collection, and radio-frequency identification (RFID) presence. MRI was superior to the US in classifying the fibrous capsule type.

Conclusion: US of silicone implants can be used as an alternative to MRI to evaluate implant complications.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Devices-Evidence and Research
Medical Devices-Evidence and Research ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信