• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

使用乳房X线摄影、超声检查和磁共振成像对硅胶乳房植入物进行比较评估:59例植入物的经验

Comparative silicone breast implant evaluation using mammography, sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging: experience with 59 implants.

作者信息

Ahn C Y, DeBruhl N D, Gorczyca D P, Shaw W W, Bassett L W

机构信息

Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles.

出版信息

Plast Reconstr Surg. 1994 Oct;94(5):620-7. doi: 10.1097/00006534-199410000-00008.

DOI:10.1097/00006534-199410000-00008
PMID:7938284
Abstract

With the current controversy regarding the safety of silicone implants, the detection and evaluation of implant rupture are causing concern for both plastic surgeons and patients. Our study obtained comparative value analysis of mammography, sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the detection of silicone implant rupture. Twenty-nine symptomatic patients (total of 59 silicone implants) were entered into the study. Intraoperative findings revealed 21 ruptured implants (36 percent). During physical examination, a positive "squeeze test" was highly suggestive of implant rupture. Mammograms were obtained of 51 implants (sensitivity 11 percent, specificity 89 percent). Sonography was performed on 57 implants (sensitivity 70 percent, specificity 92 percent). MRI was performed on 55 implants (sensitivity 81 percent, specificity 92 percent). Sonographically, implant rupture is demonstrated by the "stepladder sign." Double-lumen implants may appear as false-positive results for rupture on sonography. On MRI, the "linguine sign" represents disrupted fragments of a ruptured implant. The most reliable imaging modality for implant rupture detection is MRI, followed by sonogram. Mammogram is the least reliable. Our study supports the clinical indication and diagnostic value of sonogram and MRI in the evaluation of symptomatic breast implant patients.

摘要

鉴于目前关于硅胶植入物安全性的争议,植入物破裂的检测和评估引发了整形外科医生和患者的关注。我们的研究对乳房X线摄影、超声检查和磁共振成像(MRI)在检测硅胶植入物破裂方面进行了比较价值分析。29名有症状的患者(共59个硅胶植入物)纳入了研究。术中发现21个植入物破裂(36%)。体格检查时,阳性“挤压试验”高度提示植入物破裂。对51个植入物进行了乳房X线摄影(敏感性11%,特异性89%)。对57个植入物进行了超声检查(敏感性70%,特异性92%)。对55个植入物进行了MRI检查(敏感性81%,特异性92%)。在超声检查中,植入物破裂表现为“阶梯征”。双腔植入物在超声检查中可能出现破裂的假阳性结果。在MRI上,“细面条征”代表破裂植入物的破碎碎片。检测植入物破裂最可靠的成像方式是MRI,其次是超声检查。乳房X线摄影最不可靠。我们的研究支持超声检查和MRI在评估有症状的乳房植入物患者中的临床指征和诊断价值。

相似文献

1
Comparative silicone breast implant evaluation using mammography, sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging: experience with 59 implants.使用乳房X线摄影、超声检查和磁共振成像对硅胶乳房植入物进行比较评估:59例植入物的经验
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1994 Oct;94(5):620-7. doi: 10.1097/00006534-199410000-00008.
2
Silicone breast implant rupture: pitfalls of magnetic resonance imaging and relative efficacies of magnetic resonance, mammography, and ultrasound.硅胶乳房植入物破裂:磁共振成像的陷阱以及磁共振成像、乳房X线摄影和超声的相对效能
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999 Dec;104(7):2054-62. doi: 10.1097/00006534-199912000-00016.
3
Decision-analysis methodology in the work-up of women with suspected silicone breast implant rupture.疑似硅胶乳房植入物破裂女性检查中的决策分析方法
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998 Sep;102(3):689-95. doi: 10.1097/00006534-199809030-00011.
4
Evaluation of the rupture of silicone breast implants by mammography, ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in asymptomatic patients: correlation with surgical findings.在无症状患者中通过乳房X线摄影、超声检查和磁共振成像评估硅胶乳房植入物破裂:与手术结果的相关性
Sao Paulo Med J. 2004 Mar 4;122(2):41-7. doi: 10.1590/s1516-31802004000200002. Epub 2004 Jul 5.
5
The diagnosis of silicone breast implant rupture.硅胶乳房植入物破裂的诊断
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Dec;120(7 Suppl 1):49S-61S. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000286569.45745.6a.
6
Diagnosis of silicone gel breast implant rupture by ultrasonography.通过超声检查诊断硅胶乳房植入物破裂
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996 Jan;97(1):104-9. doi: 10.1097/00006534-199601000-00017.
7
Magnetic resonance evaluation of breast implants and soft-tissue silicone.乳房植入物和软组织硅胶的磁共振评估
Top Magn Reson Imaging. 1998 Apr;9(2):92-137. doi: 10.1097/00002142-199804000-00003.
8
The life span of silicone gel breast implants and a comparison of mammography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging in detecting implant rupture: a meta-analysis.硅胶乳房植入物的寿命以及乳腺X线摄影、超声检查和磁共振成像在检测植入物破裂方面的比较:一项荟萃分析。
Ann Plast Surg. 1998 Dec;41(6):577-85; discussion 585-6. doi: 10.1097/00000637-199812000-00001.
9
An analysis of silicone gel-filled breast implants: diagnosis and failure rates.硅胶填充乳房植入物分析:诊断与失败率
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998 Dec;102(7):2304-8; discussion 2309. doi: 10.1097/00006534-199812000-00004.
10
Diagnosing breast implant rupture with MR imaging, US, and mammography.
Radiographics. 1993 Nov;13(6):1323-36. doi: 10.1148/radiographics.13.6.8290727.

引用本文的文献

1
Imaging of the Reconstructed Breast.再造乳房的影像学检查
Diagnostics (Basel). 2023 Oct 12;13(20):3186. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13203186.
2
A Surgeon's Empirical Perspectives on Use of High-resolution Ultrasound in Preoperatively Detecting a Rupture in the Context of Breast Implant Crisis in Korea.韩国乳房植入危机背景下,外科医生对术前应用高分辨率超声检测破裂的经验性观点。
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2022 Aug;46(4):1668-1678. doi: 10.1007/s00266-022-02844-4. Epub 2022 Mar 16.
3
MRI screening for silicone breast implant rupture: accuracy, inter- and intraobserver variability using explantation results as reference standard.
MRI 筛查硅酮乳房植入物破裂:以假体取出结果作为参考标准的准确性、观察者间和观察者内变异性。
Eur Radiol. 2014 Jun;24(6):1167-75. doi: 10.1007/s00330-014-3119-8. Epub 2014 Mar 6.
4
Economic analysis of screening strategies for rupture of silicone gel breast implants.硅凝胶乳房植入物破裂的筛查策略的经济分析。
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Jul;130(1):225-237. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318254b43b.
5
The effect of study design biases on the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for detecting silicone breast implant ruptures: a meta-analysis.研究设计偏倚对磁共振成像检测硅酮乳房植入物破裂的诊断准确性的影响:荟萃分析。
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Mar;127(3):1029-1044. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182043630.