Close
New

Medscape is available in 5 Language Editions – Choose your Edition here.

 

Imaging in Breast Implant Rupture

  • Author: Richard L Hallett, MD; Chief Editor: Eugene C Lin, MD  more...
 
Updated: Oct 20, 2015
 

Overview

In the early 20th century, many cosmetic breast prosthetic techniques and materials were used for implants; these included polyvinyl alcohol prostheses, paraffin injections, and injections of free silicone. All of these techniques and materials had notable drawbacks and for the most part were abandoned.

Silicone gel breast implants (SGBIs) have been marketed in the United States since 1962. (An intact SGBI is seen in the image below.) The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began regulating SGBIs in 1976 with the passage of the Medical Device Amendments. In 1992, after months of public and private meetings, the FDA restricted the use of SGBIs to specific instances of medical necessity, such as those involving patients who had undergone mastectomy. Saline breast implants have replaced SGBIs as the common breast prosthesis. Details of the FDA rulings and current status updates are available at the Breast Implants information section of the FDA Web site.[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Inversion recovery magnetic resonance image shows Inversion recovery magnetic resonance image shows an intact silicone gel breast implant.

The ability to reliably evaluate SGBIs with imaging is important because the findings at clinical examination often are nonspecific. The incidence of implant rupture increases with time, and the long-term systemic effects of SGBIs, if any, remain unclear. The diagnosis of SGBI rupture is useful to clinicians and patients; it aids in surgical decision making and helps the patient gain peace of mind.[6]

This article does not address imaging of the rupture of single-lumen saline implants (which usually is clinically obvious because extravasated saline is rapidly absorbed and breast volume quickly decreases at examination).

Preferred examination

The imaging examinations for SGBI rupture are the following:

Patients should undergo mammography per the American Cancer Society recommendations for breast cancer screening. When implant rupture and extravasation is detected at mammography, further imaging studies may not be required. However, screening mammography alone is insensitive and its findings often are nonspecific in the detection of SGBI rupture.[16]

Limitations of techniques

MRI is the most accurate imaging examination for the evaluation of SGBI rupture.[17] MRI's drawbacks include its cost and possible unavailability. Ultrasonography is fairly accurate and more available than MRI but is highly operator dependent and has a steep learning curve. CT scanning can show findings similar to those obtained with MRI, but the modality involves ionizing radiation, and it has not been systematically studied to the extent that MRI has been. Mammography is inexpensive. Its findings can be specific if free silicone is present, but it has very low sensitivity.[18]

Next

Radiography

Findings at mammography include the following:

  • Rupture with deflation and silicone extravasation (shown in the images below)
    Craniocaudal mammogram shows free extracapsular si Craniocaudal mammogram shows free extracapsular silicone around a ruptured silicone gel breast implant.
    Mediolateral oblique mammogram shows extracapsular Mediolateral oblique mammogram shows extracapsular silicone. Note the opaque axillary lymph node, which is consistent with nodal uptake of silicone.
  • Measurable periprosthetic opaque band or rim of tissue
  • Periprosthetic calcification
  • Asymmetry in the size and/or shape of the implant
  • Focal implant herniation

Silicone injections and SGBIs can limit the sensitivity of mammography. Implant-displaced views should be obtained, if possible. Comparison with prior images is strongly advised.

Degree of confidence

When rupture and extravasation are present, confidence is high. However, these findings are uncommon, and other signs are both insensitive and relatively nonspecific. However, when screening mammography performed for other reasons reveals incidental signs of rupture, the sensitivity is high.

Previous
Next

Computed Tomography

With intracapsular ruptures, CT scans show findings analogous to the linguine sign at MRI, and CT can demonstrate the extracapsular spread of silicone. To our knowledge, no findings from large studies examining the effectiveness of CT have been published. Because CT scanning involves ionizing radiation and its multiplanar capabilities are limited, MRI typically is the examination of choice.

Previous
Next

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

MRI can be used to exploit differences in silicone, water, and fat resonance frequencies to deliver high-resolution images of SGBIs.[17, 19, 20] The approximate resonance frequency of silicone is 100 Hz lower than that of fat and 320 Hz lower than that of water. Because the resonance of silicone is similar to that of fat, silicone appears similar to fat on nonselective chemical fat- or water-suppressed images.[21, 22, 23, 11]

On short–inversion time inversion-recovery (STIR) images, the fat signal is suppressed and water and silicone are bright. Water-suppressed STIR sequences produce a silicone-only image. Chemical-shift imaging with the modified 3-point Dixon protocol provides both a silicone-only and a water-and-fat image with a single sequence. The relative appearances of silicone, fat, and water on various types of MRIs are summarized in the following table:

Table. Relative Appearances of Silicone, Fat, and Water on MRI of SGBI Rupture* (Open Table in a new window)

MR Pulse Sequence Silicone Fat Water
FSE T2 weighted Bright Moderate Very bright
FSE T2 weighted, water suppressed Bright Moderate Dark
STIR Bright Dark Very bright
STIR water suppressed Bright Dark Dark
Three-point Dixon, silicone only Bright Dark Dark
* Adapted, with permission, from Bassett and Jackson.[24]



FSE indicates fast spin echo.



While exact protocols differ among institutions, in general, orthogonal-plane imaging with several pulse sequences is performed. Image quality is maximized with the use of a dedicated phased-array breast coil and a high–field-strength magnet; however, in our experience, an adequate examination can also be performed with a low–field-strength, open-sided magnet.

Intact silicone breast implants are shown in the MRI scans below.

Inversion recovery magnetic resonance image shows Inversion recovery magnetic resonance image shows an intact silicone gel breast implant.
An intact silicone gel breast implant with a valve An intact silicone gel breast implant with a valve appears as a low–signal-intensity region in the retroareolar area. Most silicone implants are valveless; this implant includes a port for addition of saline by the implanting surgeon, for custom-fit sizing. No saline was added to this implant.

MRI findings in intact single-lumen implants

These include the following:

  • Smooth, low–signal-intensity silicone membrane shell
  • Low–signal-intensity radial folds in the shell, shown in the image below (may be complex; always abut the implant at its periphery and span the gel substance only at periphery)
    Magnetic resonance image shows a normal radial fol Magnetic resonance image shows a normal radial fold, which appears as a low–signal-intensity line through the implant.
  • A few internal water droplet signals (common; not a reliable indication of rupture)
  • Reactive fluid around textured implants (common; not indicative of rupture)
  • Fibrous capsule (dark, ringlike structure around the implant)

MRI findings in double-lumen implants

Gradual deflation of the saline chamber over time results in complex fold patterns and occasional, nonspecific findings of fluid around the outer capsule of the implant.

MRI findings in intracapsular rupture

The linguine sign refers to a collapsed and folded elastomer shell that is floating in gel. This is the most reliable sign of intracapsular rupture.

The keyhole (ie, teardrop, inverted teardrop, noose) sign refers to the presence of silicone both inside and outside a radial fold. These signs are shown in the images below.

Fast spin-echo T2-weighted magnetic resonance imag Fast spin-echo T2-weighted magnetic resonance image shows the keyhole sign. Silicone appears on both sides of the radial fold. The differential diagnosis includes intracapsular rupture and extensive gel bleeding. A small water droplet is in the posterior aspect; small water droplets have no prognostic importance in silicone gel breast implant rupture.
Magnetic resonance image shows the keyhole, or inv Magnetic resonance image shows the keyhole, or inverted teardrop, sign. The linguine sign is present elsewhere on the image, and a portion of the sign is adjacent to the keyhole sign. These findings are consistent with an intracapsular silicone gel breast implant rupture.

MRI findings in extracapsular rupture

Macroscopic extrusion of silicone through the fibrous capsule into the surrounding parenchyma, pectoralis muscle, or lymph nodes is present.[8] Findings in intracapsular rupture should be expected. Extracapsular silicone is seen in the image below.

Sagittal magnetic resonance image shows extracapsu Sagittal magnetic resonance image shows extracapsular silicone, with a high–signal-intensity lesion in axilla (which is compatible with silicone in node, as shown on the mammogram).

MRI findings in internal rupture of double-lumen implants

Failure of the inner shell may be depicted as saline droplets that are floating in the silicone gel; this is considered a form of intracapsular rupture. The presence of some saline droplets is a normal finding in single-lumen implants.

MRI findings in capsular contracture

Asymmetrical, serrated, focal folding of the fibrous capsule that changes the normal ovoid appearance of the implant may be present.

A transverse diameter of less than twice the anteroposterior depth corresponds well to clinically evident contracture.

Degree of confidence

MRI has a reported a sensitivity of 76-95% and a specificity of 93-97% in the detection of rupture.

False positives/negatives

Extensive gel bleeding can have the same findings as those of an intracapsular rupture, in which the keyhole sign is present and the linguine sign is absent. Some authors believe that a tiny tear is present and that it can be found with diligent examination at surgery. Other authors maintain that microscopic gel bleeding alone is the cause. Radial folds are normal invaginations of the silastic membrane, and they should not be confused with the keyhole sign. Silicone should not be present both inside and outside a radial fold.

Previous
Next

Ultrasonography

Typically, a high-frequency (eg, 10-MHz) transducer is used.[13, 14, 15]

Ultrasonographic findings in an intact implant

These include the following:

  • Smooth, thin, linear membrane
  • Sonolucent anechoic interior (most reliable but insensitive finding)
  • Reverberation artifact from the proximal membrane wall
  • Radial folds possible
  • Linear internal echoes

With regard to radial folds, parts of the implant envelope may be connected by scanning adjacent portions of the implant.

Linear internal echoes do not indicate rupture. The abundance of the linear echoes has been evaluated, and their effect in the prediction of rupture is not statistically significant.[25]

Ultrasonographic findings in intracapsular rupture

These include the following:

  • Stepladder sign
  • Echogenic implant lumen
  • Focal, prominent, irregular bulge in the implant
  • Ill-defined or poorly visualized implant margin

The stepladder sign is identified as multiple, discontinuous, parallel, linear echoes in the lumen. It is the most reliable ultrasonographic finding in intracapsular rupture and is analogous to the linguine sign at MRI.

Ultrasonographic findings in extracapsular rupture

These include the following[8] :

  • Snowstorm, or hyperechoic, noise (shown in the images below)
    Longitudinal ultrasonogram shows the snowstorm, or Longitudinal ultrasonogram shows the snowstorm, or hyperechoic, noise associated with the capsule in proven extracapsular silicone gel breast implant rupture. Usually, the interior of an intact implant is sonolucent.
    Longitudinal ultrasonogram shows the snowstorm app Longitudinal ultrasonogram shows the snowstorm appearance of the soft tissues of the breast, which is consistent with extracapsular silicone gel breast implant rupture and free parenchymal silicone.
  • Silicone masses (granulomas) - The same hyperechoic noise pattern for snowstorm noise (described below); possibly hyperechoic or hypoechoic and similar to other breast lesions (including carcinoma) or nearly sonolucent and similar to breast cysts (hyperechoic noise is often near or around cystic-appearing masses)
  • Snowstorm pattern in involved axillary lymph node

Snowstorm noise refers to intense, homogeneous echogenicity with loss of the posterior detail of free silicone. (Silicone can replace portions of the implant envelope, be extruded into the breast parenchyma, forming nodules, and migrate to lymph nodes.)

Indeterminate findings

These include the following:

  • Coarse echogenic aggregates
  • Cobwebs
  • Smooth focal bulge in the implant
  • Peri-implant fluid collections

In one study, coarse echogenic aggregates occurred in 41% of surgically confirmed implant ruptures.[26] They have also been found to occur in approximately the same percentage of implants that have been confirmed as intact at surgery.

Cobwebs are delicate, short, linear echoes that are diffusely scattered throughout the implant. (Most authors consider this finding to be a normal variant; they are also called "commas" in some reports.)

Degree of confidence

Sensitivity ranges from 47-74%; specificity, from 55-96%. An anechoic interior, although rare (4 of 64 implants in one series), is a strong indicator of an intact implant.

False positives/negatives

Ultrasonography is limited in the evaluation of the posterior implant wall, because of marked beam attenuation caused by silicone. Use of a low-frequency transducer (eg, 5 MHz) can help improve visualization of the posterior wall of the implant and the adjacent soft tissues. Reverberation artifacts from the near-side interface may limit visibility of the superficial implant margins. Prior silicone injections limit visualization of the implant.

Previous
 
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Author

Richard L Hallett, MD Chief, Cardiovascular Imaging, Northwest Radiology Network; Adjunct Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center

Richard L Hallett, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Society of Interventional Radiology, North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Indiana Radiological Society, American College of Radiology, American Heart Association, Radiological Society of North America

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editor Board

Bernard D Coombs, MB, ChB, PhD Consulting Staff, Department of Specialist Rehabilitation Services, Hutt Valley District Health Board, New Zealand

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Edward Azavedo, MD, PhD Director of Clinical Breast Imaging Services, Associate Professor, Department of Radiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden

Edward Azavedo, MD, PhD is a member of the following medical societies: Radiological Society of North America, Swedish Medical Association, Swedish Society of Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Eugene C Lin, MD Attending Radiologist, Teaching Coordinator for Cardiac Imaging, Radiology Residency Program, Virginia Mason Medical Center; Clinical Assistant Professor of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine

Eugene C Lin, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Nuclear Medicine, American College of Radiology, Radiological Society of North America, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Additional Contributors

John M Lewin, MD Section Chief, Breast Imaging, Diversified Radiology of Colorado, PC; Associate Clinical Professor, Department of Preventative Medicine and Biometrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine

John M Lewin, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Radiology, American Roentgen Ray Society, Radiological Society of North America, Society of Breast Imaging

Disclosure: Received consulting fee from Hologic, Inc. for consulting; Received grant/research funds from Hologic, Inc. for research.

References
  1. Cunningham B. The Mentor study on Contour Profile Gel Silicone MemoryGel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. Dec 2007. 120(7 Suppl 1):33S-39S. [Medline].

  2. Spear SL, Murphy DK, Slicton A, et al. Inamed silicone breast implant core study results at 6 years. Plast Reconstr Surg. Dec 2007. 120(7 Suppl 1):8S-16S; discussion 17S-18S. [Medline].

  3. McLaughlin JK, Lipworth L, Murphy DK, et al. The safety of silicone gel-filled breast implants: a review of the epidemiologic evidence. Ann Plast Surg. Nov 2007. 59(5):569-80. [Medline].

  4. Hölmich LR, Lipworth L, McLaughlin JK, Friis S. Breast implant rupture and connective tissue disease: a review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Dec. 120(7 Suppl 1):62S-69S. Review. [Medline].

  5. Hedén P, Bronz G, Elberg JJ, Deraemaecker R, Murphy DK, Slicton A, et al. Long-Term Safety and Effectiveness of Style 410 Highly Cohesive Silicone Breast Implants. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2009 May 13. [Medline].

  6. Johnson M. Breast implants: history, safety, and imaging. Radiol Technol. 2013 May-Jun. 84(5):439M-520M. [Medline].

  7. Goodman CM, Cohen V, Thornby J, et al. The life span of silicone gel breast implants and a comparison of mammography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging in detecting implant rupture: a meta-analysis. Ann Plast Surg. 1998 Dec. 41(6):577-85; discussion 585-6. [Medline].

  8. Caskey CI, Berg WA, Hamper UM, et al. Imaging spectrum of extracapsular silicone: correlation of US, MR imaging, mammographic, and histopathologic findings. Radiographics. 1999 Oct. 19 Spec No:S39-51; quiz S261-2. [Medline].

  9. Vestito A, Mangieri FF, Ancona A, Minervini C, Perchinunno V, Rinaldi S. Study of breast implant rupture: MRI versus surgical findings. Radiol Med. 2012 Sep. 117(6):1004-18. [Medline].

  10. Chung KC, Malay S, Shauver MJ, Kim HM. Economic analysis of screening strategies for rupture of silicone gel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Jul. 130(1):225-37. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  11. Shah M, Tanna N, Margolies L. Magnetic resonance imaging of breast implants. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Dec. 23 (6):345-53. [Medline].

  12. Lake E, Ahmad S, Dobrashian R. The sonographic appearances of breast implant rupture. Clin Radiol. 2013 Apr 24. [Medline].

  13. Rochira D, Cavalcanti P, Ottaviani A, Tambasco D. Longitudinal Ultrasound Study of Breast Implant Rupture Over a 6-Year Interval. Ann Plast Surg. 2015 May 7. [Medline].

  14. Stachs A, Dieterich M, Hartmann S, Stubert J, Reimer T, Gerber B. Diagnosis of ruptured breast implants through high-resolution ultrasound combined with real-time elastography. Aesthet Surg J. 2015 May. 35 (4):410-8. [Medline].

  15. Mennie JC, Quaba O, Smith M, Quaba A. Diagnosing PIP breast implant failure: a prospective analysis of clinical and ultrasound accuracy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015 Apr. 68 (4):540-5. [Medline].

  16. Di Benedetto G, Cecchini S, Grassetti L, Baldassarre S, Valeri G, Leva L, et al. Comparative study of breast implant rupture using mammography, sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with surgical findings. Breast J. 2008 Nov-Dec. 14(6):532-7. [Medline].

  17. Middleton MS, McNamara MP Jr. Breast implant classification with MR imaging correlation: (CME available on RSNA link). Radiographics. 2000 May. 20(3):E1. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  18. Gorczyca DP, Gorczyca SM, Gorczyca KL. The diagnosis of silicone breast implant rupture. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Dec. 120(7 Suppl 1):49S-61S. Review. [Medline].

  19. Morgan DE, Kenney PJ, Meeks MC, et al. MR imaging of breast implants and their complications. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996 Nov. 167(5):1271-5. [Medline].

  20. Orel SG. MR imaging of the breast. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000 Jul. 38(4):899-913. [Medline].

  21. Kreymerman P, Patrick RJ, Rim A, Djohan R, Crowe JP. Guidelines for using breast magnetic resonance imaging to evaluate implant integrity. Ann Plast Surg. 2009 Apr. 62(4):355-7. [Medline].

  22. Van Goethem M, Verslegers I, Biltjes I, Hufkens G, Parizel PM. Role of MRI of the breast in the evaluation of the symptomatic patient. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Feb. 21(1):74-9. [Medline].

  23. McCarthy CM, Pusic AL, Kerrigan CL. Silicone breast implants and magnetic resonance imaging screening for rupture: do U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommendations reflect an evidence-based practice approach to patient care?. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Apr. 121(4):1127-34. [Medline].

  24. DeBruhl ND, Gorcyzca DP, Bassett LW. The Augmented Breast. Bassett LW, Jackson VP, Eds. Diagnosis of Diseases of the Breast. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1997. 563-79.

  25. Palmon LU, Foshager MC, Parantainen H, et al. Ruptured or intact: what can linear echoes within silicone breast implants tell us?. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997 Jun. 168(6):1595-8. [Medline].

  26. Venta LA, Salomon CG, Flisak ME, et al. Sonographic signs of breast implant rupture. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996 Jun. 166(6):1413-9. [Medline].

 
Previous
Next
 
Inversion recovery magnetic resonance image shows an intact silicone gel breast implant.
An intact silicone gel breast implant with a valve appears as a low–signal-intensity region in the retroareolar area. Most silicone implants are valveless; this implant includes a port for addition of saline by the implanting surgeon, for custom-fit sizing. No saline was added to this implant.
Magnetic resonance image shows a normal radial fold, which appears as a low–signal-intensity line through the implant.
Fast spin-echo T2-weighted magnetic resonance image shows the keyhole sign. Silicone appears on both sides of the radial fold. The differential diagnosis includes intracapsular rupture and extensive gel bleeding. A small water droplet is in the posterior aspect; small water droplets have no prognostic importance in silicone gel breast implant rupture.
Magnetic resonance image shows the keyhole, or inverted teardrop, sign. The linguine sign is present elsewhere on the image, and a portion of the sign is adjacent to the keyhole sign. These findings are consistent with an intracapsular silicone gel breast implant rupture.
Craniocaudal mammogram shows free extracapsular silicone around a ruptured silicone gel breast implant.
Mediolateral oblique mammogram shows extracapsular silicone. Note the opaque axillary lymph node, which is consistent with nodal uptake of silicone.
Sagittal magnetic resonance image shows extracapsular silicone, with a high–signal-intensity lesion in axilla (which is compatible with silicone in node, as shown on the mammogram).
Longitudinal ultrasonogram shows the snowstorm, or hyperechoic, noise associated with the capsule in proven extracapsular silicone gel breast implant rupture. Usually, the interior of an intact implant is sonolucent.
Longitudinal ultrasonogram shows the snowstorm appearance of the soft tissues of the breast, which is consistent with extracapsular silicone gel breast implant rupture and free parenchymal silicone.
Table. Relative Appearances of Silicone, Fat, and Water on MRI of SGBI Rupture *
MR Pulse Sequence Silicone Fat Water
FSE T2 weighted Bright Moderate Very bright
FSE T2 weighted, water suppressed Bright Moderate Dark
STIR Bright Dark Very bright
STIR water suppressed Bright Dark Dark
Three-point Dixon, silicone only Bright Dark Dark
* Adapted, with permission, from Bassett and Jackson.[24]



FSE indicates fast spin echo.



Previous
Next
 
 
 
 
 
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2016 by WebMD LLC. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.