Imaging breast augmentation and reconstruction

Glynn, Catherine; Litherland, Janet

doi:10.1259/bjr/61567884

Cited by 32 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…b Demonstrates how the axillary view can be acquired. Any compression paddle can be used, but often the small paddle will fit nicely under the humeral head Submuscular positioning gives improved visualization on mammography but pectoralis muscle contraction can cause distortion and result in lateral displacement [7]. When mammography is performed to assess the remaining tissue with this type of reconstruction, the density of saline or silicone used in the implant will interfere with the study regardless of the type and location of the implant.…”

Section: Implantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Flaps are also performed, most commonly transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM), which can either be attached via a pedicle or anastomosed as free flaps, or latissimus dorsi flaps, and are used to reform the breast either alone or in conjunction with an implant [7]. Recurrence rates in patients who have undergone a TRAM flap reconstructive surgery have been reported at 4-11%, most within the first 5 years [8][9][10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A review of breast imaging following mastectomy with or without reconstruction in an outpatient community center

Destounis¹,

Morgan²,

Arieno³

et al. 2011

Breast Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite developments in surgical technique, radiation treatment, and chemotherapeutic agents, tumor recurrence and distant disease have remained a major concern in breast cancer management. Breast imaging after mastectomy in the screening arena remains a controversial topic for breast imagers. Many feel the yield of finding a recurrent cancer with imaging in the asymptomatic patient is too low to be beneficial; others believe imaging should be performed on these patients as the risk of recurrence exists. Patients after a mastectomy procedure are considered high risk and, when they present with clinical symptoms, will require evaluation by the radiologist. In this diagnostic/symptomatic scenario, imaging becomes the routine and current imaging tools, such as mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), can easily be incorporated to diagnose recurrent cancer. Our facility has a large population of patients that undergo mastectomy after a carcinoma diagnosis as well as a number of patients that have undergone a mastectomy procedure because of their high-risk status (whether family history or genetic predisposition). A certain percentage of these patients have proceeded to reconstructive surgery. We image these patients routinely as part of our screening protocol. Over the years we have become familiar with the appearance of remaining tissue along the chest wall after mastectomy as well as the reconstructed breasts. This familiarity is important as the imaging of these patients with mammography and other modalities available today can be challenging. This manuscript will discuss the benefits and some limitations surrounding imaging these patients, in both the asymptomatic and symptomatic scenarios, as well as what imaging protocols can be integrated within a facility's standard evaluation.

show abstract

Section: Implantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of breast imaging following mastectomy with or without reconstruction in an outpatient community center

Destounis¹,

Morgan²,

Arieno³

et al. 2011

Breast Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In case of intra-capsular rupture, implant shell is breached without macroscopic silicone leakage beyond the intact fibrous capsule. In case of extra-capsular rupture, both the implant shell and the fibrous capsule are breached, with macroscopic silicone leakage into the surrounding tissues or lymph nodes [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of US in evaluating breast implant integrity

Telegrafo

Moschetta

2015

J Ultrasound

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the classical “snowstorm” appearance with dense acoustic shadowing [16]. A completely negative ultrasound examination has a very high predictive value for implant integrity [17], limiting the application of mammography or MRI to sonographically suspicious cases [5]. …”

Section: Consensus Decisions Of the First International Breast (Implamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to this figure, there is an ever-increasing demand for cosmetic breast implantation that has led to a dramatic rise in procedure numbers in the past 2 decades [3, 4]. To date, breast augmentation with single lumen silicone implants—currently the ‘gold standard’ of augmentation—is the single most common cosmetic procedure in the UK [5]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imaging in patients with breast implants—results of the First International Breast (Implant) Conference 2009

Stöblen¹,

Rezai

Kümmel

2010

Insights Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe First International Breast (Implant) Conference was held by the EAoS® (European Academy of Senology) in cooperation with the German Society of Senology during its 29th annual meeting in Düsseldorf, Germany, on 13 June 2009.MethodsIt was performed as a whole-day interactive workshop in which the standards of implant surgery within reconstructive and aesthetic breast surgery were discussed and defined by telecommunication dialogue voting.ResultsThis article describes the conference results concerning pre- and post-procedural imaging in patients with breast implants. Both before and after augmentation, imaging is mandatory and provides essential information concerning tissue and implant integrity. Whereas mammography is the first-line method before surgery, ultrasound is the mainstay of post-procedural imaging. Cancer screening in augmented breasts generally follows the same guidelines as for non-augmented breasts.ConclusionWhereas agreement about the indications for mammographical and sonographical evaluations is largely unanimous, there was substantial disagreement as far as the application of magnetic resonance imaging is concerned. There is an obvious demand for an evidence-based evaluation of this modality and the implementation of appropriate guidelines.

show abstract

Imaging breast augmentation and reconstruction

Cited by 32 publications

References 6 publications

A review of breast imaging following mastectomy with or without reconstruction in an outpatient community center

A review of breast imaging following mastectomy with or without reconstruction in an outpatient community center

Role of US in evaluating breast implant integrity

Imaging in patients with breast implants—results of the First International Breast (Implant) Conference 2009

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About