Use of High-Resolution Ultrasound in Characterizing a Breast Implant and Detecting a Rupture of the Device.

SUMMARY: With the emergence of state-of-the art implant technology and advanced surgical techniques, plastic surgeons face challenging problems, such as identification of a specific type of a device and diagnosis of postoperative complications, in managing patients undergoing implant-based augmentation mammaplasty. In this article, the authors introduce a novel method for characterizing a breast implant based on diverse factors (eg, filler properties, type of pocket, surface topography, shape type, and manufacturer of the device) and detecting the presence and scope of rupture using high-resolution ultrasound.

A Surgeon's Empirical Perspectives on Use of High-resolution Ultrasound in Preoperatively Detecting a Rupture in the Context of Breast Implant Crisis in Korea.

BACKGROUND: We previously proposed a novel method for detecting a rupture of a breast implant using high-resolution ultrasound (HRUS). We therefore conducted this retrospective, observational study to describe its feasibility in making a preoperative diagnosis of rupture of the device in patients receiving an implant-based augmentation mammaplasty. METHODS: We initially evaluated the medical records of the patients who had received primary or secondary augmentation mammaplasty using a breast implant at other hospitals for aesthetic or reconstructive purposes between August 31, 2017, and August 31, 2020. The patients underwent breast US using the Aplio i600 (Canon Medical System, Otawara, Tochigi, Japan) system with a 7-18 MHz linear transducer. Through a retrospective review of the patients' medical records, we analyzed their baseline and clinical characteristics. Then, we compared an agreement between preoperative diagnosis of rupture on HRUS and findings at reoperation. RESULTS: A total of 29 patients with rupture (55 breasts) were evaluated for the performance of ultrasound in making a diagnosis of rupture. This showed that they were unaware of rupture but they were diagnosed with it on ultrasound. Preoperatively, there were no cases of rupture in 110 left breasts (80.9%) and 107 right breasts (78.7%), which exactly matched to the number of breasts without rupture on HRUS. Moreover, preoperatively, there were 26 (19.1%) and 29 cases (21.3%) of rupture in the left and right breast, respectively, which exactly matched to the number of breasts with rupture on HRUS. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, patients who are suspected of having rupture of a breast implant should be stringently evaluated for presence of rupture and, if any, its scope using HRUS. Moreover, we propose that surgeons consider using HRUS in making a preoperative diagnosis of rupture of a breast implant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

The Role of High Resolution Ultrasonography in Elucidating Features of the Breast Implants in Asymptomatic Patients After Implant-based Augmentation Mammaplasty.

BACKGROUND: We conducted this study to describe the feasibility of high-resolution ultrasound (HRUS) in characterizing a breast implant in patients receiving an implant-based augmentation mammaplasty. METHODS: The current study was conducted in a total of 612 patients (n =6 12) receiving an implant-based augmentation mammaplasty at other hospitals between August 31, 2017 and August 31, 2020. Of these, 136 patients (n = 136; 272 breasts) receiving reoperation were included in the current study. We compared between the patients' subjective awareness of a breast implant and its HRUS findings and an agreement between HRUS findings of a breast implant and its findings at reoperation. RESULTS: The proportion of the patients receiving a silicone gel-filled breast implant was increased from 65.44% (89/136) to 81.61% (111/136) on HRUS. Moreover, HRUS was effective in identifying a manufacturer of the device. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our results indicate that HRUS is feasible in characterizing a breast implant in patients receiving an implant-based augmentation mammaplasty. But further prospective, large-scale studies are warranted to corroborate our results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors. www.springer.com/00266 .

The Value of Capsule Thickness on Breast Ultrasound as an Indicator of the Severity of Capsular Contracture and Its Correlation with the Baker Classification.

BACKGROUND: We conducted this study to explore the value of the capsule thickness as an indicator of the severity of capsular contracture (CC) alternatively to the Baker classification system in patients who were treated with an implant-based augmentation mammaplasty. METHODS: A total of 117 eligible patients (202 breasts) were included in the current study. We measured the capsule thickness using ultrasound and histologic examination in association with the Baker grades I, II, III and IV. Then, we analysed agreement of the capsule thickness between the two methods using an intra-correlation coefficient (ICC 2,1) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The CC of Baker grades II, III and IV (105 breasts), for which the capsule thickness could be measured using US, served as Model 1. Moreover, Model 1 including the CC of Baker grades I (97 breasts) served as Model 2. RESULTS: The capsule thickness was measured as 0.58 ± 0.11 (0.4-0.8) mm, 1.07 ± 0.16 (0.8-1.31) mm and 1.89 ± 0.55 (1-4.1) mm on ultrasound in association with Baker grades II, III and IV, respectively. In addition, it was also measured as 0.28 ± 0.07 (0.09-0.41) mm, 0.58 ± 0.08 (0.42-0.75) mm, 1.06 ± 0.14 (0.79-1.34) mm and 2.13 ± 1.14 (1.38-6.98) mm on histologic examination in association with Baker grades I, II, III and IV, respectively. In Model 1 and 2, the ICC was calculated as 0.942 (95%CI 0.914-0.961) and 0.955 (95%CI 0.940-0.966), respectively. The cut-off values between the Baker grades I-II, II-III and III-IV were calculated as 0. mm, 0.8 mm and 1.2 mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the capsule thickness might be used as an indicator of the severity of CC alternatively to the Baker classification system. But further studies are warranted to establish our results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .