Breast Trauma: The Problem with Silicone
Chidi T. Nwachukwu1 and Katrina Glazebrook2
1Mayo Clinic, United States, 2Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States

Synopsis

Keywords: Body: Breast

Motivation: This presentation seeks to contribute to the understanding of breast implant-related trauma.

Goal(s): After reviewing this lecture, learners should be able to explain the different appearances of breast implant rupture and understand the differences in appearance across multiple modalities.

Approach: The content of this didactic is mainly presented in the form of cases detailing different aspects of implant-related trauma.

Results: Multiple cases with predominantly multimodality findings reviewing the sequelae of implant-related trauma are presented.

Impact: This didactic overall attempts to contribute to the body of available content detailing imaging findings characteristic of implant rupture.

Breast Implant rupture has a variety of presentations related to the type of implant being assessed and the imaging modality being utilized for assessment. Rupture may be secondary to an acute event or may occur with implant age, presenting as sudden or indolent implant change that clinically may go unnoticed. Mammography and ultrasound each may undoubtedly confirm implant rupture if severe enough, but MRI is the primary imaging modality for characterization of breast implant integrity. Breast CT has also emerged as a formidable modality for the assessment of breast implant integrity. In this presentation multiple cases are shown depicting multimodality findings associated with the imaging assessment of post-traumatic patients with questioned implant integrity.

Acknowledgements

No acknowledgement found.

References

1.Everson LI, Parantainen H, Detlie T, Stillman AE, Olson PN, Landis G, Foshager MC, Cunningham B, Griffiths HJ. Diagnosis of breast implant rupture: imaging findings and relative efficacies of imaging techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994 Jul;163(1):57-60. doi: 10.2214/ajr.163.1.8010248. PMID: 8010248.

2.Glazebrook KN, Doerge S, Leng S, Drees TA, Hunt KN, Zingula SN, Pruthi S, Geske JR, Carter RE, McCollough CH, Fletcher JG. Ability of Dual-Energy CT to Detect Silicone Gel Breast Implant Rupture and Nodal Silicone Spread. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Apr;212(4):933-942. doi: 10.2214/AJR.18.20138. Epub 2019 Feb 19. PMID: 30779664.

3.Lake E, Ahmad S, Dobrashian R. The sonographic appearances of breast implant rupture. Clin Radiol. 2013 Aug;68(8):851-8. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2013.03.014. Epub 2013 Apr 24. PMID: 23623260.

4.Noreña-Rengifo BD, Sanín-Ramírez MP, Adrada BE, Luengas AB, Martínez de Vega V, Guirguis MS, Saldarriaga-Uribe C. MRI for Evaluation of Complications of Breast Augmentation. Radiographics. 2022 Jul-Aug;42(4):929-946. doi: 10.1148/rg.210096. Epub 2022 May 13. PMID: 35559662.

5.Raj SD, Karimova EJ, Fishman MDC, Fein-Zachary V, Phillips J, Dialani V, Slanetz PJ. Imaging of Breast Implant-associated Complications and Pathologic Conditions: Breast Imaging. Radiographics. 2017 Sep-Oct;37(5):1603-1604. doi: 10.1148/rg.2017170025. PMID: 28898186.

6.Seiler SJ, Sharma PB, Hayes JC, Ganti R, Mootz AR, Eads ED, Teotia SS, Evans WP. Multimodality Imaging-based Evaluation of Single-Lumen Silicone Breast Implants for Rupture. Radiographics. 2017 Mar-Apr;37(2):366-382. doi: 10.1148/rg.2017160086. Epub 2017 Feb 10. PMID: 28186859.

7.Shah AT, Jankharia BB. Imaging of common breast implants and implant-related complications: A pictorial essay. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2016 Apr-Jun;26(2):216-25. doi: 10.4103/0971-3026.184409. PMID: 27413269; PMCID: PMC4931781.

8.Yang N, Muradali D. The augmented breast: a pictorial review of the abnormal and unusual. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Apr;196(4):W451-60. doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.4864. PMID: 21427311.

Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 32 (2024)