Is breast ultrasound a good alternative to magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating implant integrity?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance of breast ultrasound and breast magnetic resonance imaging and to correlate the findings on the two techniques that are suggestive of implant rupture. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We reviewed the images and reports of breast ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging studies done in our diagnostic and interventional breast imaging unit to evaluate breast implants in 205 patients between January 2015 and December 2017. RESULTS: Ultrasound findings were compatible with implant rupture in 87 (42.4%) patients: intracapsular rupture in 44 (21.5%) and intracapsular and extracapsular rupture in 43 (21.0%). Ultrasound yielded 85.2% sensitivity, 89.7% specificity, 86.2% positive predictive value, and 89.0% negative predictive value. Magnetic resonance imaging findings were compatible with implant rupture in 88 (42.9%) patients: intracapsular rupture in 50 (24.4%) and intracapsular and extracapsular rupture in 38 (18.5%). The correlation between positive findings for the location of the rupture on the two imaging techniques was excellent (0.77; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: We found high concordance between the two techniques for the detection of intracapsular and extracapsular implant rupture. These results consolidate the use of ultrasound as the first-line imaging technique to evaluate implant integrity in our population; magnetic resonance imaging can be reserved for cases in which the ultrasound diagnosis of implant integrity is uncertain.

Is breast ultrasound a good alternative to magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating implant integrity? / ¿Es la ecografía mamaria una buena alternativa a la resonancia magnética en la evaluación de la integridad protésica?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance of breast ultrasound and breast magnetic resonance imaging and to correlate the findings on the two techniques that are suggestive of implant rupture. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We reviewed the images and reports of breast ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging studies done in our diagnostic and interventional breast imaging unit to evaluate breast implants in 205 patients between January 2015 and December 2017. RESULTS: Ultrasound findings were compatible with implant rupture in 87 (42.4%) patients: intracapsular rupture in 44 (21.5%) and intracapsular and extracapsular rupture in 43 (21.0%). Ultrasound yielded 85.2% sensitivity, 89.7% specificity, 86.2% positive predictive value, and 89.0% negative predictive value. Magnetic resonance imaging findings were compatible with implant rupture in 88 (42.9%) patients: intracapsular rupture in 50 (24.4%) and intracapsular and extracapsular rupture in 38 (18.5%). The correlation between positive findings for the location of the rupture on the two imaging techniques was excellent (0.77; p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: We found high concordance between the two techniques for the detection of intracapsular and extracapsular implant rupture. These results consolidate the use of ultrasound as the first-line imaging technique to evaluate implant integrity in our population; magnetic resonance imaging can be reserved for cases in which the ultrasound diagnosis of implant integrity is uncertain.

Note: A simple system for low-temperature experiments in a large-volume multi-anvil press.

A simple cooling system for a 3000-ton multi-anvil press was developed for temperatures below room temperature at high pressures. It is much simpler in design, easier to make and use, and has the same cooling capability as the previous design. The new system uses a steel ring surrounding the module wedges, which contains liquid nitrogen (LN2) that flows freely through a port to flood the interior of the pressure module. O-rings on the steel ring seal in LN2 while permitting compression. Two different cooling systems reach ∼220 K which suggests that thermal equilibrium for this press is reached between the removal and influx of heat.