الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 103 |  |  |
| | | from | 103 | | |
Abstract
There are advantages and disadvantages to all imaging modalities used in
the evaluation of implant integrity.
MRI has the highest sensitivity and specificity for evaluation of implant
integrity and is the most accurate imaging modality for the detection of
intra- and extra capsular rupture. It has none of the limitations of
mammography or ultrasound, but it is expensive and time-consuming. MRI
requires modern dedicated breast-imaging coils, and necessitates a thorough
knowledge of implants and of potential diagnostic pitfalls. Detailed
information regarding the type of implant and surgical technique, the time
interval since surgery and any radiotherapy should be available before the
examination is interpreted. The excellent soft tissue resolution provided by MRI and its ability to demonstrate implant integrity are valuable in assessing the augmented and reconstructed breast. Non contrast MRI, using multiple planes and employing sequences designed to evaluate the internal structure of the implant and to assess for extra capsular silicone is the most sensitive imaging modality available to assess for silicone implant rupture. Furthermore, contrast-enhanced MRI may assist in depicting cancer in augmented breasts and may allow biopsy to be avoided: the use of
intravenous contrast and ability to image posterior tissues are particularly
valuable in women in whom mammography is compromised by the presence
of implants. Although expensive and possibly unavailable, MRI is considered the modality of choice for imaging women with breast implants. It has the potential to address questions raised or unanswered with traditional diagnostic imaging methods as it has the highest sensitivity and specificity
for detection of implant rupture, together with its ability to assess the breast tissue surrounding the implant.