The Value of MRI Findings in Augmented Mammoplasty

PURPOSE: The objective of augmentation mammoplasty includes reconstruction and cosmesis after breast surgery Increasing frequency of the procedure has been related with increased complications. Authors evaluated the value of breast MRI in the diagnosis of complications after augmentation mammoplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Authors studied 42 breasts of 24 patients, who had undertaken augmentation mammoplasty. We evaluated findings of mammography, ultrasonography, and breast MRI in all patients. We used variable MRI sequences for better evaluation of implant status. The results were compared with the findings in surgical field. RESULTS: In all imaging studies, nodule or mass was indentifiable in the cases of interstitial paraffine injection(8 breasts), interstitial silicon injection(7 breasts), and herb medication(2 breasts). However, the differentitation between malignant and benign nodule was only possible at dynamic breast MRI. Mammogram was not helpful in the evaluation of extracapsular rupture in the cases of silastic bag insertion. In sonogram, identification of echogenic material was possible, although, false negative and false positive rate were high. MRI was able to visualize contour of entire implant and it was able to easily recognize low signal internal structure. CONCLUSION: MRI was the most accurate diagnostic tool in the evaluation of the character of the palpable mass after augmentation mammoplasty and early detection of breast implant rupture.

The Value of MRI Findings in Augmented Mammoplasty

PURPOSE: The objective of augmentation mammoplasty includes reconstruction and cosmesis after breast surgery Increasing frequency of the procedure has been related with increased complications. Authors evaluated the value of breast MRI in the diagnosis of complications after augmentation mammoplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Authors studied 42 breasts of 24 patients, who had undertaken augmentation mammoplasty. We evaluated findings of mammography, ultrasonography, and breast MRI in all patients. We used variable MRI sequences for better evaluation of implant status. The results were compared with the findings in surgical field. RESULTS: In all imaging studies, nodule or mass was indentifiable in the cases of interstitial paraffine injection(8 breasts), interstitial silicon injection(7 breasts), and herb medication(2 breasts). However, the differentitation between malignant and benign nodule was only possible at dynamic breast MRI. Mammogram was not helpful in the evaluation of extracapsular rupture in the cases of silastic bag insertion. In sonogram, identification of echogenic material was possible, although, false negative and false positive rate were high. MRI was able to visualize contour of entire implant and it was able to easily recognize low signal internal structure. CONCLUSION: MRI was the most accurate diagnostic tool in the evaluation of the character of the palpable mass after augmentation mammoplasty and early detection of breast implant rupture.