Download PDF
Senologie - Zeitschrift für Mammadiagnostik und -therapie 2020; 17(03): 197-206
DOI: 10.1055/a-1099-5024
Übersicht

Implantate der weiblichen Brust – Teil 1: Normalbefund in der MRT

Breast implants – Part 1: Normal findings in MR
Uwe Fischer
1   Diagnostisches Brustzentrum Göttingen BZG, Göttingen
,
Hafiez Said
2   Abteilung für Plastische und Rekonstruktive Chirurgie, Krankenhaus Neu Bethlehem, Göttingen
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die prothetische Versorgung der Brust zur Organvergrößerung gehört seit den 60er Jahren des letzten Jahrhunderts zum medizinischen Routineeingriff, wobei dieses Thema in überwiegendem Maße Frauen, aber auch Transsexuelle betrifft [1] [2]. Entsprechende Operationen erfolgen einerseits mit plastisch-ästhetischer Zielsetzung oder andererseits zur Herstellung der normalen anatomischen Verhältnisse nach onkologischer Brustdrüsen- oder Brustdrüsenteilentfernung. Zum Einsatz kamen hierbei anfänglich in erster Linie Silikonimplantate, später wurden auch Kochsalz- und Polyacrylimplantate genutzt [3] [4] [5]. Im ersten von 3 Teilen erfolgt die bildgebende Präsentation von Normalbefunden bei Implantaten unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der MRT.

Abstract

For enlargement, prosthetic interventions of the breast were performed routinely since the 60thies of the last century. Those operations were predominantly done in women, but also in transsexual persons. The aim of such interventions was for plastic-aesthetic reasons on the one hand, or for reconstruction of a normal anatomic situation after oncologic complete or incomplete mastectomy. In the beginning, silicone was used for the content of the implants. Later, other materials like saline solution or polyacrylics were also applied. In this first of three parts of a publication about MRI of breast implants, the authors describe the typical findings of normal implants in diagnostic imaging with a special topic to MRI.

Schlüsselwörter

Brust - Implantat - Normalbefund - Bildgebung - MRI

Key words

breast - implants - normal findings - imaging - MRI


Publication History

Article published online:
08 September 2020

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Cronin TD, G.F. Augmentation mammaplasty: a new “natural feel” prosthesis.. Excerpta Medica International Congress Series 1963; 66: 41
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Cronin TD, Gerow FJ. Augmentation mammoplasty: A new ‘natural feel’ prosthesis. Transections of the Third International Congress of Plastic Surgery, Amsterdam. Excerpta Medica Foundation 1964; 41-49
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Cronin TD, Greenberg RL. Our experiences with the silastic gel breast prosthesis. Plast Reconstr Surg 1970; 46: 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Tabari K. Augmentation with Simaplast implant. Plast Reconstruct Surg 1969; 44: 468-470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Pudenz RH. Augmentation mammaplasty. Internal Heyer-Schulte document dated July 1978 about polyurethane-coated silicone gel-filled breast implant (Bates no. MB 104861).
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Czerny V. Plastischer Ersatz der Brustdrüse durch ein Lipom. Zentralbl Chir 1895; 22: 72
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Peters W, Pritzker K, Smith D. et al. Capsular calcification associated with silicone breast implants: incidence, determinants, and characterization. Ann Plast Surg 1998; 41: 348-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Collis N, Sharpe DT. Silicone gel-filled breast implant integrity: a retrospective review of 478 consecutively explanted implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 105: 1979-1985
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Brown SL, Middleton MS, Berg WA. et al. Prevalence of rupture of silicone gel breast implants revealed on MR imaging in a population of women in Birmingham, Alabama. Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175: 1057-1064
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Barker DE, Retsky MI, Schultz S. "Bleeding" of silicone from bag-gel breast implants, and its clinical relation to fibrous capsule reaction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1978; 61: 836-841
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gayou RM. A histological comparison of contracted and non-contracted capsules around silicone breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 1979; 63: 700-707
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Maxwell GP, Gabriel A. The evolution of breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 134: 12S-17S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Brandon HJ, Young VL, Jerina KL. et al. Variability in the properties of silicone gel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 108: 647-655
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Collis N, Coleman D, Foo IT. et al. Ten-year review of a prospective randomized controlled trial of textured versus smooth subglandular silicone gel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 106: 786-791
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Asplund O, Gylbert L, Jurell G. et al. Textured or smooth implants for submuscular breast augmentation: a controlled study. Plast Reconstr Surg 1996; 97: 1200-1206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Peters W, Smith D, Fornasier V. et al. An outcome analysis of 100 women after explantation of silicone gel breast implants. Ann Plast Surg 1997; 39: 9-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Scully SJ. Augmentation mammaplasty without contracture. Ann Plast Surg 1981; 6: 262-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Everson LI, Parantainen H, Detlie T. et al. Diagnosis of breast implant rupture: imaging findings and relative efficacies of imaging techniques. Am J Roentgenol 1994; 163: 57-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Fischer U. Plastische Eingriffe und Prothesen. In: Fischer U. ed. Röntgenmammografie. Verstehen, anwenden und optimieren. New York: Thieme Stuttgart; 2003: 219-223
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Gorczyca DP, Gorczyca SM, Gorczyca KL. The diagnosis of silicone breast implant rupture. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120: 49S-61S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kam K, Lee E, Pairawan S. et al. The Effect of Breast Implants on Mammogram Outcomes. Am Surg 2015; 81: 1053-1056
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Stivala A, Rem K, Leuzzi S. et al. Efficacy of ultrasound, mammography and magnetic resonance imaging in detecting breast implant rupture: A retrospective study of 175 reconstructive and aesthetic subpectoral breast augmentation cases. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2017; 70: 1520-1526
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lourenco AP, Moy L, Baron P. et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria Breast Implant Evaluation. J Am Coll Radiol 2018; 15: S13-S25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Eklund GW, Busby RC, Miller SH. et al. Improved Imaging of the augmented Breast. Am J Roentgenol 1988; 151: 469-473
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Eklund GW, Cardenosa G. Mammobgraphic evaluation of the augmented breast. In: Gorczyca DP, Brenner RJ. ed: The augmented breast. Radiological and clinical perspectives. Stuttgart: Thieme New York; 1997: 45-55
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 2008; 246: 376-383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ. et al. Mammographic Density and the Risk and Detection of Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 227-236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Vachon CM, van Gils CH, Sellers ThA. et al. Mammographic density, breast cancer risk and risk prediction. Breast Cancer Research 2007; 9: 217-226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Barter S, Heywang-Köbrunner SH. Bildgebende Diagnostik bei Brustimplantaten. In: Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Schreer I. ed. Bildgebende Mammadiagnostik. Untersuchungstechnik, Befundmuster, Differenzialdiagnose und Interventionen. New York: Thieme Stuttgart; 2015: 519-538
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Venta LA, Salomon CG, Flisak ME. et al. Sonographic signs of breast implant rupture. Am J Roentgenol 1996; 166: 1413-1419
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Beekman WH, van Straalen WR, Hage JJ. et al. Imaging signs and radiologists’ jargon of ruptured breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 102: 1281-1289
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 DeBruhl ND, Gorczyca DP, Ahn CY. et al. Silicone breast implants: US evaluation. Radiology 1993; 189: 95-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Caskey CI, Berg WA, Anderson ND. et al. Breast implant rupture: Diagnosis with US. Radiology 1994; 190: 819-823
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Siu AL. Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med 2016; 164: 279-296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF): S3-Leitlinie Früherkennung, Diagnose, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms, Version 4.1, 2018 AWMF Registernummer: 032-045OL. http://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/leitlinien/mammakarzinom
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Gossner J. Sonography in capsular contracture after breast augmentation: Value of established criteria, new techniques and directions for research. J Ultrasound 2017; 20: 87-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Ikeda DM, Borofsky HB, Herfkens RJ. et al. Silicone breast implant rupture: pitfalls of magnetic resonance imaging and relative efficacies of magnetic resonance, mammography, and ultrasound. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 104: 2054-2062
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar