TY - JOUR
T1 - Utility of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in diagnosing breast implant rupture
AU - Weizer, G.
AU - Malone, Robert S.
AU - Netscher, David T.
AU - Walker, L. E.
AU - Thornby, J.
PY - 1995/1/1
Y1 - 1995/1/1
N2 - We prospectively evaluated 81 patients (with 160 implants) who subsequently had implants remove to determine sensitivity and specificity of both magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography. Positive and negative predictive values were also calculated to determine whether a statistically beneficial interaction existed when ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging were used in combination to examine an implant. Finally, the misdiagnoses were retrospectively evaluated to identify the pitfalls of the investigations. Positive diagnostic criteria were described. The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography were 47% and 83%, respectively, and of MRI, 46% and 88%, respectively. On retrospective review by the radiologist, the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography were 70% and 90%, respectively, and of magnetic resonance imaging, 75.6% and 94%, respectively. Although definite conclusions could not be obtained, there did not seem to be an additive benefit from using both ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging.
AB - We prospectively evaluated 81 patients (with 160 implants) who subsequently had implants remove to determine sensitivity and specificity of both magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography. Positive and negative predictive values were also calculated to determine whether a statistically beneficial interaction existed when ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging were used in combination to examine an implant. Finally, the misdiagnoses were retrospectively evaluated to identify the pitfalls of the investigations. Positive diagnostic criteria were described. The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography were 47% and 83%, respectively, and of MRI, 46% and 88%, respectively. On retrospective review by the radiologist, the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography were 70% and 90%, respectively, and of magnetic resonance imaging, 75.6% and 94%, respectively. Although definite conclusions could not be obtained, there did not seem to be an additive benefit from using both ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028934234&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028934234&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/00000637-199504000-00003
DO - 10.1097/00000637-199504000-00003
M3 - Article
C2 - 7793779
AN - SCOPUS:0028934234
SN - 0148-7043
VL - 34
SP - 352
EP - 361
JO - Annals of plastic surgery
JF - Annals of plastic surgery
IS - 4
ER -