Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 4/2013

01-04-2013 | Computed Tomography

Dual-energy CT for the evaluation of silicone breast implants

Authors: Thorsten R. C. Johnson, Isabelle Himsl, Karin Hellerhoff, Doris Mayr, Dorothea Rjosk-Dendorfer, Nina Ditsch, Bernhard Krauss, Klaus Friese, Maximilian F. Reiser, Miriam S. Lenhard

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 4/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

The evaluation of breast implants for rupture is currently the domain of ultrasound and MRI, while mammography is of very limited diagnostic value. Recently, specific visualisation of silicone has become feasible using dual-energy CT. Our objective was to evaluate whether it is feasible to identify silicone in breast implants by dual-energy CT and to reliably diagnose or rule out ruptures.

Methods

Seven silicone breast implant specimens were examined on dual-source CT at 100- and 140-kV tube potential with a 0.8-mm tin filter (collimation 128 × 0.6 mm, current–time products 165 and 140 mAsref with modulation, rotation time 0.28 s, pitch 0.55). Two patients scheduled for implant removal or replacement were examined with identical parameters.

Results

The silicone of the implant specimens showed a strong dual-energy signal. In one patient, both implants were intact, while a rupture was identified in the other patient. Ultrasound, MRI, surgical findings and histology confirmed the dual-energy CT diagnosis.

Conclusion

Dual-energy CT may serve as an alternative technique for speedy evaluation of silicone breast implants. Specific clinical studies are required to determine the diagnostic accuracy and define indications for this technique.

Key Points

• Dual-energy CT makes it possible to visualise silicone in breast implants.
• Silicone provides a strong photoelectric effect that can be detected.
• Initial experience suggests that implant ruptures can be identified or ruled out.
Literature
1.
Smith R, Lunt N, Hanefeld J (2012) The implications of PIP are more than just cosmetic. Lancet 379:1180–1181PubMedCrossRef
2.
3.
Yang N, Muradali D (2011) The augmented breast: a pictorial review of the abnormal and unusual. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:W451–W460PubMedCrossRef
4.
Goodman CM, Cohen V, Thornby J, Netscher D (1998) 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 41:577–585, discussion 585–576PubMedCrossRef
5.
Hammond DC (2012) Discussion: prevalence of rupture in poly implant prothese silicone breast implants, recalled from the European market in 2010. Plast Reconstr Surg 129:1379–1380PubMedCrossRef
6.
Maijers MC, Niessen FB (2012) Prevalence of rupture in poly implant prothese silicone breast implants, recalled from the European market in 2010. Plast Reconstr Surg 129:1372–1378PubMedCrossRef
7.
Aktouf A, Auquit-Auckbur I, Coquerel-Beghin D, Delpierre V, Milliez PY (2012) Breast augmentation by poly implant protheses silicone implants: retrospective study about 99patients. Rupture analysis and management. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. doi:10.​1016/​j.​anplas.​2012.​04.​007
8.
9.
Venkataraman S, Hines N, Slanetz PJ (2011) Challenges in mammography: part 2, multimodality review of breast augmentation—imaging findings and complications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:W1031–W1045PubMedCrossRef
10.
Cilotti A, Marini C, Iacconi C et al (2006) Ultrasonographic appearance of breast implant complications. Ann Plast Surg 56:243–247PubMedCrossRef
11.
Venta LA, Salomon CG, Flisak ME, Venta ER, Izquierdo R, Angelats J (1996) Sonographic signs of breast implant rupture. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166:1413–1419PubMedCrossRef
12.
Caskey CI, Berg WA, Anderson ND, Sheth S, Chang BW, Hamper UM (1994) Breast implant rupture: diagnosis with US. Radiology 190:819–823PubMed
13.
Di Benedetto G, Cecchini S, Grassetti L et al (2008) Comparative study of breast implant rupture using mammography, sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with surgical findings. Breast J 14:532–537PubMedCrossRef
14.
Ikeda DM, Borofsky HB, Herfkens RJ, Sawyer-Glover AM, Birdwell RL, Glover GH (1999) Silicone breast implant rupture: pitfalls of magnetic resonance imaging and relative efficacies of magnetic resonance, mammography, and ultrasound. Plast Reconstr Surg 104:2054–2062PubMedCrossRef
15.
Weizer G, Malone RS, Netscher DT, Walker LE, Thornby J (1995) Utility of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in diagnosing breast implant rupture. Ann Plast Surg 34:352–361PubMedCrossRef
16.
Reynolds HE, Buckwalter KA, Jackson VP, Siwy BK, Alexander SG (1994) Comparison of mammography, sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of silicone-gel breast implant rupture. Ann Plast Surg 33:247–255, discussion 256–247PubMedCrossRef
17.
Ahn CY, Shaw WW, Narayanan K et al (1993) Definitive diagnosis of breast implant rupture using magnetic resonance imaging. Plast Reconstr Surg 92:681–691PubMedCrossRef
18.
Gorczyca DP, Gorczyca SM, Gorczyca KL (2007) The diagnosis of silicone breast implant rupture. Plast Reconstr Surg 120:49S–61SPubMed
19.
Holmich LR, Vejborg I, Conrad C, Sletting S, McLaughlin JK (2005) The diagnosis of breast implant rupture: MRI findings compared with findings at explantation. Eur J Radiol 53:213–225PubMedCrossRef
20.
Madhuranthakam AJ, Smith MP, Yu H et al (2012) Water-silicone separated volumetric MR acquisition for rapid assessment of breast implants. J Magn Reson Imaging 35:1216–1221PubMedCrossRef
21.
Koh DM, Blackledge M, Burns S et al (2012) Combination of chemical suppression techniques for dual suppression of fat and silicone at diffusion-weighted MR imaging in women with breast implants. Eur Radiol. doi:10.​1007/​s00330-012-2531-1
22.
Johnson TR, Krauss B, Sedlmair M et al (2007) Material differentiation by dual energy CT: initial experience. Eur Radiol 17:1510–1517PubMedCrossRef
23.
Choi JJ, Lee JH, Kang BJ et al (2010) Clinical and imaging characteristics of Polyimplant Prosthesis hydrogel breast implants. J Comput Assist Tomogr 34:449–455PubMedCrossRef
24.
Huda W, Ogden KM, Khorasani MR (2008) Converting dose-length product to effective dose at CT. Radiology 248:995–1003PubMedCrossRef
25.
26.
Torjesen I (2012) NHS patients are choosing to have PIP implants removed whether or not they have burst. BMJ 344:e1460PubMedCrossRef
27.
28.
O’Dowd A (2012) Government puts pressure on private sector to pay for removal of PIP breast implants. BMJ 344:e249PubMedCrossRef
29.
Kalender WA, Beister M, Boone JM, Kolditz D, Vollmar SV, Weigel MC (2012) High-resolution spiral CT of the breast at very low dose: concept and feasibility considerations. Eur Radiol 22:1–8PubMedCrossRef
30.
31.
ICRP (2007) The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 37:1–332
32.
Smathers RL, Boone JM, Lee LJ, Berns EA, Miller RA, Wright AM (2007) Radiation dose reduction for augmentation mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:1414–1421PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Dual-energy CT for the evaluation of silicone breast implants
Authors
Thorsten R. C. Johnson
Isabelle Himsl
Karin Hellerhoff
Doris Mayr
Dorothea Rjosk-Dendorfer
Nina Ditsch
Bernhard Krauss
Klaus Friese
Maximilian F. Reiser
Miriam S. Lenhard
Publication date
01-04-2013
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 4/2013
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2667-z

Other articles of this Issue 4/2013

European Radiology 4/2013 Go to the issue

Breast

Impact of breast mass size on accuracy of ultrasound elastography vs. conventional B-mode ultrasound: a meta-analysis of individual participants

Breast

Investigation of viewing procedures for interpretation of breast tomosynthesis image volumes: a detection-task study with eye tracking

Magnetic Resonance

The value of apparent diffusion coefficient in the assessment of cervical cancer

Interventional

Added value of FDG-PET imaging in the diagnostic workup for yttrium-90 radioembolisation in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases

Neuro

Diagnostic performance of regional DTI-derived tensor metrics in glioblastoma multiforme: simultaneous evaluation of p, q, L, Cl, Cp, Cs, RA, RD, AD, mean diffusivity and fractional anisotropy

Urogenital

Routine pelvic MRI using phased-array coil for detection of extraprostatic tumour extension: accuracy and clinical significance