Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Breast Implants Follow-up: Results of a Cross-Sectional Study on Patients Submitted to MRI Breast Examinations

  • Original Article
  • Breast Surgery
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Breast implants follow-up with any type of examination is often neglected; this may cause an error or delay in the diagnosis of complications prosthesis-related such as BIA-ALCL. This study aims to better understand adequate follow-up criteria.

Method

All female patients undergoing aesthetic breast augmentation and breast MRI in its follow-up conducted from April 2006 to December 2019 were included in this study. The variables analyzed were age, breast implant surgery date, time with the implant, reason for the examination, and the final examination report. A logistic regression analysis was conducted to search for the predictors of positive findings in MRI. A Cox Regression analysis and cumulative risk curves, controlled by age, was performed to investigate the relationship between time with implants and the risk of positive findings in MRI.

Results

The patients submitted to MRI had complaints in 29.6% of cases, with pain being the most common, 13.9% of cases. In logistic regression analysis, time with the implant was associated with a higher risk of positive findings in univariate analysis (OR = 1.07, p = 0.036), but not in multivariate analysis. Both pain and breast form changes were independent predictors for positive findings in MRI, OR = 2.79, p = 0.04, and OR = 16.98, p < 0.001, respectively. The cumulative risk of positive findings in MRI increased considerably only after 10 years of implantation.

Conclusions

Time with breast implants may be associated with a higher risk of changes in breast MRI examinations, although this relationship was not significant in multivariate logistic regression analysis. The cumulative risk for positive findings seems to increase considerably only after 10 years of implantation. This study draws attention to the paramount importance of follow-up with a clinical breast examination. Despite time with implants or patients' age, both pain and breast form changes were the most important predictors for MRI alterations.

Level of Evidence IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2020) Silicone gel-filled breast implants. FDA Medical Devices, Silver Spring. 4 April 2020. Retrieved from www.fda.gov

  2. Carr L, Roberts J, Mericli A, Liu J, Arribas E, Clemens M (2020) Breast implant imaging Surveillance among US plastic surgeons: US Food and Drug Administration Recommendations versus clinical reality. Plast Reconstruct Surg 145(6):1381–1387. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000006812

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ashford K. What I learned when I asked how much my MRI would cost. orbes. October 31, 2014. https:// www.forbes.com/sites/kateashford/2014/10/31/how-much-mri-cost/#28dde5568485. Accessed 8 April 2020.

  4. American Health Imaging. How much does an MRI cost? https://www.americanhealthimaging.com/how-much-does-mri-cost/. Accessed 18 July 2019.

  5. Bengtson BP, Eaves FF III (2012) High-resolution ultrasound in the detection of silicone gel breast implant shell failure: background, in vitro studies, and early clinical results. Aesthet Surg J 32:157–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Leberfinger A, Behar B, Williams N, Rakszawski K, Potochny J, Mackay D et al (2017) Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. JAMA Surg 152(12):1161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Pileri SA et al (2016) The 2016 revision of the World Health Organization classification of lymphoid neoplasms. Blood 127:2375–2390

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lazzeri D, Agostini T, Bocci G et al (2011) ALK-1-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma associated with breast implants: a new clinical entity. Clin Breast Cancer 11(5):283–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Keech JA Jr, Creech BJ (1997) Anaplastic T-cell lymphoma in proximity to a saline-filled breast implant. Plast Reconstr Surg 100:554–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. de Jong D, Vasmel WL, de Boer JP et al (2008) Anaplastic large-cell lymphoma in women with breast implants. JAMA 300:2030–2035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Laurent C, Delas A, Gaulard P et al (2016) Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma: two distinct clinicopathological variants with different outcomes. Ann Oncol 27:306–314

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. McGuire P, Reisman NR, Murphy DK (2017) Riskfactor analysis for capsular contracture, malposition, and late seroma in subjects receiving Natrelle 410 form-stable silicone breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 139(1):1–9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lourenco A, Moy L, Baron P, Didwania A, diFlorio R, Heller S et al (2018) ACR Appropriateness Criteria® breast implant evaluation. J Am Coll Radiol 15(5):S13–S25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Song JW, Kim HM, Bellfi LT, Chung KC (2011) The effect of study design biases on the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for detecting silicone breast implant ruptures: a meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 127:1029–1044

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Collis N, Litherland J, Enion D, Sharpe DT (2007) Magnetic resonance imaging and explantation investigation of long-term silicone gel implant integrity. Plast Reconstr Surg 120:1401–1406

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hedén P, Bronz G, Elberg JJ et al (2009) Long-term safety and effectiveness of style 410 highly cohesive silicone breast implants. Aesthet Plast Surg 33:430–436 (discussion 437–438)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Collins MS, Miranda RN, Medeiros LJ et al (2019) Characteristics and treatment of advanced breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Plast Reconstr Surg 143:41S–50S

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Carty MJ, Pribaz JJ, Antin JH et al (2011) A patient death attributable to implant-related primary anaplastic large cell lymphoma of the breast. Plast Reconstr Surg 128:112e–118e

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Brody GS, Deapen D, Taylor CR et al (2015) Anaplastic large cell lymphoma occurring in women with breast implants: analysis of 173 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 135:695–705

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Food and Drug Administration: Medical device reports of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/breast-implants/medical-device-reports-breast-implant-associated-anaplastic-large-cell-lymphoma

  21. Breast implant special topics. https://www.fda.gov/media/122962/download. Accessed 13 July 2020.

Download references

Funding

The authors declare that they have no funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Plastic Surgery, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Ramiro Barcelos St., 2350, Porto Alegre, RS, 90035-007, Brazil

    Antonio Carlos Pinto Oliveira, Eduardo Madalosso Zanin, Daniele Walter Duarte & Marcus Vinicius Martins Collares

  2. Division of Plastic Surgery, Hospital Mãe de Deus, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil

    Marcelo Maino

  3. Division of Radiology, Hospital Mãe de Deus, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil

    Lucio de Carli

Authors
  1. Antonio Carlos Pinto Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcelo Maino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eduardo Madalosso Zanin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lucio de Carli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniele Walter Duarte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marcus Vinicius Martins Collares
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eduardo Madalosso Zanin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The research followed the Helsinki principles.

Informed Consent

The patients signed an informed consent form.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oliveira, A.C.P., Maino, M., Zanin, E.M. et al. Breast Implants Follow-up: Results of a Cross-Sectional Study on Patients Submitted to MRI Breast Examinations. Aesth Plast Surg 45, 27–34 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01962-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01962-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation