TY - JOUR
T1 - The diagnosis of silicone breast-implant rupture: clinical findings compared with findings at magnetic resonance imaging
AU - Hölmich, Lisbet Rosenkrantz
AU - Fryzek, Jon P
AU - Kjøller, Kim
AU - Breiting, Vibeke Bro
AU - Jørgensen, Anna
AU - Krag, Christen
AU - McLaughlin, Joseph K
PY - 2005/6/1
Y1 - 2005/6/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
M3 - Journal article
VL - 54
SP - 583
EP - 589
JO - Annals of Plastic Surgery
JF - Annals of Plastic Surgery
SN - 0148-7043
IS - 6
ER -