Surface imaging of breast implants using modern high-frequency ultrasound technology in comparison to high-end sonography with power analyses for B-scan optimization1.

AIM: This study aims to evaluate optimized breast implant surface-structure analysis by comparing high-end ultrasound technology with a new high frequency technique. This comparative study used new breast implants with different surfaces in an in vitro setting. METHODS: Nine idle silicon or polyurethane (PU) breast implants were examined by two investigators in an experimental in vitro study using two high-end ultrasound devices with multi-frequency transducers (6-15 MHz, 9-16 MHz, 12.5-33 MHz).The ultrasound B-Mode was optimized using tissue harmonic imaging (THI), speckle reduction imaging (SRI, level 0-5), cross beam (high, medium, low) and photopic.Using a standardized ultrasound protocol, the implants were examined in the middle (point of highest projection) and lateral, by two independent examiners.Image evaluation was performed on anonymized digital images in the PACS. The aim was to achieve an artifact-free recording of the surface structure, the surface coating, the total image structures and, as far as possible, an artifact-free internal representation of the implants.For independent surface evaluation a score was used (0 = undetectability of surface structures, rich in artifacts, 5 = best possible, artifact free image quality). RESULTS: The quality of ultrasound imaging of breast implant surfaces after the optimization of B-Scan differed significantly comparing high-end ultrasound technology with modern high-frequency ultrasound technology (p < 0,05).The following setting has been found to be the best setting with the highest image quality:B-Mode, SRI value 3, Crossbeam high level with color coded imaging for B- mode. In the total examined frequency range of 6-33 MHz, the highest image quality was found in the average frequency range of 12.5-33 MHz at both measured points. For both devices, device 1 (high-end) and device 2 (high frequency) ultrasound, the image quality was in the12.5-33 MHz frequency range with an average image quality of 3.236. It was significantly higher, than in the lower frequency ranges and the same frequency range with THI. (p < 0,05). The image quality of the high-end sonography device was superior to the conventional high-frequency ultrasound device in all frequency ranges. CONCLUSION: High-end ultrasound imaging technology was superior in the quality of implant surface evaluation in comparison to high-frequency ultrasound sonography. The gained knowledge can serve as a basis for further multicenter clinical application and studies with the aim to develop an objective, precise tool to evaluate the implant and the surrounding tissue with ultrasound.