Utility of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in diagnosing breast implant rupture

Ann Plast Surg. 1995 Apr;34(4):352-61. doi: 10.1097/00000637-199504000-00003.


We prospectively evaluated 81 patients (with 160 implants) who subsequently had implants removed to determine sensitivity and specificity of both magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography. Positive and negative predictive values were also calculated to determine whether a statistically beneficial interaction existed when ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging were used in combination to examine an implant. Finally, the misdiagnoses were retrospectively evaluated to identify the pitfalls of the investigations. Positive diagnostic criteria were described. The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography were 47% and 83%, respectively, and of MRI, 46% and 88%, respectively. On retrospective review by the radiologist, the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography were 70% and 90%, respectively, and of magnetic resonance imaging, 75.6% and 94%, respectively. Although definite conclusions could not be obtained, there did not seem to be an additive benefit from using both ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study

MeSH terms

  • Breast / pathology
  • Breast Implants / adverse effects*
  • Diagnostic Errors
  • Equipment Failure
  • Female
  • Gels
  • Humans
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging*
  • Middle Aged
  • Polyurethanes
  • Predictive Value of Tests
  • Prospective Studies
  • Reoperation
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Sensitivity and Specificity
  • Silicones
  • Sodium Chloride
  • Ultrasonography, Mammary*


  • Gels
  • Polyurethanes
  • Silicones
  • Sodium Chloride