Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
    Ann Plast Surg. 2005 Jun;54(6):583-9.

    The diagnosis of silicone breast-implant rupture: clinical findings compared with findings at magnetic resonance imaging.

    Source

    Danish Cancer Society, Institute of Cancer Epidemiology, Copenhagen, Denmark. Lisbet@cancer.dk

    Abstract

    The objective was to evaluate the usefulness of clinical examination in the evaluation of breast-implant integrity, using the diagnosis at magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the "gold standard." Fifty-five women with 109 implants underwent a breast examination either just before or shortly after an MRI examination. Twenty-four of 109 implants were clinically diagnosed with possible rupture or rupture. Eighteen of the 24 implants were ruptured according to the MRI examination (75%). Eighty-five implants were clinically classified as intact, and 43 of these were actually ruptured at MRI (51%). The sensitivity of the clinical examination for diagnosing rupture was thus 30% and the specificity 88%. The positive predictive value of a clinical diagnosis of rupture was 75%, and the negative predictive value was 49%. In this study, we found that when a clinical examination is used as the sole diagnostic tool to identify implant rupture, neither the sensitivity nor the specificity is acceptable.

    PMID:
    15900139
    [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

      Supplemental Content

      Icon for Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

      Save items

      Recent activity

      Your browsing activity is empty.

      Activity recording is turned off.

      Turn recording back on

      See more...
      Write to the Help Desk