RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: There are many indications for breast augmentation, including reconstruction after mastectomy, correction of congenital disorders and cosmetic procedures. The most frequent local complication of this surgery is capsule formation due to fibrosis. The aim of the study was to assess the usefulness of sonoelastography in the evaluation of capsule formation around silicone implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study group included 13 patients aged 20 to 41, who underwent breast augmentation with silicone implants. Their 26 breasts were examined before surgery, 7 and 14 days and a minimum of 8.5 months after surgery. The breast stiffness was assessed with tonometry and shear wave elastography to evaluate elasticity of the breast tissue and capsule formation after surgery. RESULTS: We assessed the correlation between capsular elasticity measured at successive visits and the Baker scale. There were no significant relationships between any pairs of variables (p > 0.05). We also analyzed the correlation between the time of the follow-up and changes in the tissue elasticity of every region - no significant relationship was found. The greatest decrease in pericapsular elasticity was established in lower and inner quadrants. Moreover, there was a significant difference between the elasticity of the tissue before and 1 week after surgery (p < 0.05) and no significant changes in the elasticity before surgery and at the end of the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Sonoelastography is precise in evaluation of capsule formation after breast augmentation. It may show changes that cannot be assessed using palpation.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Formation of a capsule is a natural inflammatory response to a foreign body such as a breast implant. Breast capsular contracture is the most severe complication of implant surgery. AIM: To evaluate breast tissues and the periprosthetic reaction with sonoelastography. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Nineteen patients aged 20-41 underwent breast augmentation with silicone-filled implants. Their 38 breasts were evaluated before surgery, and 7 and 14 days after surgery. Whole breast stiffness was measured by applanation tonometry. Patients underwent shear wave elastography and Young's moduli of breast tissues and the periprosthetic capsule were estimated. During surgery patients underwent standard anaesthesia and were released home 2 days later after removal of drainage. Each day, patients completed the pain visual analogue scale questionnaire separately for left and right breasts. RESULTS: Applanation tonometry did not correlate with any parameter. In shear wave elastography we observed statistically significant changes in elasticity of all breast tissues with the highest values on day 7 after surgery and decreasing on day 14. The correlations between pain and capsule elasticity in lower quadrants measured were significant between days 4 and 10, whereas correlations of pain with applanation tonometry were insignificant. Glandular tissue elasticity in lower quadrants did not correlate with pain, whereas in upper quadrants there was a significant correlation on days 6-10. Fatty tissue, muscle and thoracic fascia elasticity did not correlate with breast pain. Breast implant volume correlated with pain only shortly after surgery, but did not correlate with any sonoelastographic parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Breast pain correlates strongly with periprosthetic stiffness in elastography 4 to 10 days after breast augmentation, suggesting the possible role of an inflammatory reaction.
