Abstract
The purpose of our study was to evaluate mammographic image quality of various methods of reconstructive breast surgery with specific reference to the possibility of diagnosis of recurrent tumors. A total of 39 patients who underwent breast reconstruction following modified radical mastectomy were subject to clinical and mammographic examination. Three groups were formed: (a)autonomous tissue reconstruction (TRAM flap; n = 9), (b) submuscular silicon gel prostheses (n = 21), and (c) supramuscular silicon gel prostheses (n = 9). Mammographic image quality of the groups was compared by two radiologists working together using a point system where five specific criteria were valued and scored. The result was tabulated into three quality levels: good, acceptable, and limited. Mammograms were assessed as good, acceptable, or limited, respectively, as follows: group I: 7(77.8%), 1(11.1%), (111.1%): group II. 4 (19%), 11 (52.4%), 6 (28.6%)l; group III: 3 (33.3%), 4 (44.5%), 2 (22.2%). The TRAM-flap method of reconstruction displays a high degree of mammographie image quality and therefore is preferable with respect to early diagnosis of recurrent tumors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Donegan WL, Perez-Mesa CM, Watson FR (1966). A biostatistical study of locally recurrent breast carcinoma. Surg Gynecol Obstet 122: 529–540.
Loyer EM, Kroll SS, David CL, Du Brow RA, Libshitz HI (1991) Mammographic and CT findings after breast reconstruction with a rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap. AJR 156:1159–1162.
Eklund GW, Busby RC, Miller SH, Job JS (1988) Improved imaging of the augmented breast. AJR 151: 469–473.
Schain WS, Wellisch DK, Pasnau RO, Landsverk J (1985) The sooner the better: a study of psychological factors in women undergoing immediate versus delayed breast reconstruction. Am J Psychiatry 142: 40–46.
Stevens LA, McGrath MH, Druss RG, Kister SJ, Gump FE, Forde KA (1984) The psychological impact of immediate breast reconstruction for women with early breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg 73: 619–626.
Silverstein MJ, Handel N, Gamagami P et al. (1988) Breast cancer in women after augmentation mammoplasty. Arch Surg 123: 681–685.
Stewart NR, Monsees BS, Destouet JM, Rudloff MA (1992) Mammographic appearance following implant removal. Radiology 185: 83–85.
Silverstein MJ, Handel N, Gamagami P, Waisman E, Gierson ED (1990) Mammographic measurements before and after augmentation mammoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 86: 1126–1130.
Hoflehner H, Lindbichler F, Pierer G et al. (1993) Mammographisches screening der rekonstruierten Brust — ein Vergleich unterschiedlicher Rekonstruktionsmethoden. Acta Chir Austr 4 Mammakarzinom “State of Art” Suppl 103: 37.
Dershaw DD, Chaglassian TA (1989) Mammography after prosthesis placement for augmentation or reconstructive mammoplasty. Radiology 170: 69–74.
Rosanelli G, Steindorfer P, Smola M (1990) Das lokoregiondre Rezidiv beim Mammacarcinom. Acta Chir Austr (Sonderheft) 22: 8.
Young VL, Diehl GJ, Eichling J, Monsees BS, Destouet J (1993) The relative radiolucencies of breast implant filler materials. Plast Reconstr Surg 91: 1066–1072.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lindbichlert, F., Hoflehner, H., Schmidt, R. et al. Comparison of mammographic image quality in various methods of reconstructive breast surgery. Eur. Radiol. 6, 925–928 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00240708
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00240708