Abstract
Breast implants used for augmentation mammoplasty or breast reconstruction could rupture from various causes such as trauma or spontaneous failure. The objectives of this study were to investigate the relationships between the causes of implant rupture and the degree of capsular contracture, and then to evaluate the relative efficacies of specific signs on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) known to be beneficial for diagnosing the rupture. A retrospective review identified patients with prosthetic implant rupture or impending rupture treated by the senior author. The 30 cases of implant rupture available for review were classified into two groups: intracapsular and extracapsular ruptures. The 30 cases of breast implant ruptures were analyzed with respect to the clinical symptoms and signs, the causes of rupture, the degree of capsular contracture, and therapeutic plans. Among the 30 cases, 14 patients who had undergone MRI during the diagnostic period were analyzed with respect to the relationships between MRI readings and operative findings. Spontaneous rupture of membranes was most common (80%), followed by failure because of trauma (7%) and valve or implant base (4%). The symptoms during implant rupture were contour deformity, palpated masslike lesions, pain, and focal inflammation. According to the analysis of specific MRI signs, the sensitivity and specificity of the linguine sign were 87% and 100%, respectively, for intracapsular rupture. For extracapsular rupture, the sensitivity and specificity of the linguine sign were, respectively, 67% and 75%. The sensitivity and specificity of the rat-tail sign and tear drop sign were 14% and 50%, respectively.
Breast implant rupture was correlated with the degree of capsular contracture in our study. Among the various specific MRI signs used in diagnosing the rupture, the linguine sign was reliable and had a high sensitivity and specificity, especially in cases of intracapsular rupture. On the other hand, the rat-tail and tear drop signs were nonspecific signs for diagnosing the rupture of breast implant.
Similar content being viewed by others
Reference
Aim CY, Shaw WW: Definite diagnosis of breast implants in vivo: MR imaging. Radiology 185:407–410, 1992
Berkel H, Birdsell DC, Jenkins H: Breast augmentation: A risk factor for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 326:1649–1653, 1992
Brandon HJ, Young VL: Biodurability of retrieved silicone gel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:2295–2306, 2003
Brown SL. Epidemiology of silicone-gel breast implant. Epidemiology 13:S34–S39, 2002
Chung KC, Greenfield VH, Walters M: Decision–analysis methodology in the workup of women with suspected silicone breast implant rupture. Plast Reconstr Surg 102:689–695, 1998
Feng LJ, Amini SB: Analysis of risk facotors associated with rupture of silicone gel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 104:955–963, 1999
Holmich LR, Vejborg IM, Wiik A, Friis S: Untreated silicone breast implant rupture. Plast Reconstr Surg 114:204–214, 2004
Ikeda DM, Borofsky HB, Herfkens RJ, Glover GH: Silicone breast implant rupture: Pitfalls of magnetic resonance imaging and relative efficacies of magnetic resonance mammography and ultrasound. Plast Reconstr Surg 104:2054–2062, 1999
Jung SH, Kook SH, Kim MS: MRI of breast implant–related complications. J Korean Radio Soc 38:1129, 1998
Peters W, Pugash R: Factors affecting the rupture of silicone-gel breast implants. Ann Plast Surg 32:449–451, 1994
Roh TS, Lee HK, Shin KS: Imaging diagnosis of breast implant–related complications and the use of MRI. J Korean Soc Plast Reconstr Surg 23:157–166, 1996
Steinbach BG, Hardt NS, Abbitt PL, Lanier L, Caffee HH: Breast implants, common complications, and concurrent breast disease. Radiographics 13:95–118, 1993
William TM, Hobby JA: Immediate rupture of breast implant following trauma. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:2432–2433, 2002
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tark, K.C., Jeong, H.S., Roh, T.S. et al. Analysis of 30 Breast Implant Rupture Cases. Aesth Plast Surg 29, 460–469 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-004-0146-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-004-0146-x