A Surgeon’s Empirical Perspectives on Use of High-resolution Ultrasound in Preoperatively Detecting a Rupture in the Context of Breast Implant Crisis in Korea

• Published in: Aesthetic plastic surgery 2022-08, Vol.46 (4), p.1668-1678
• Main Authors: Bang, Bum Sik, Jung, Seong Hoon, Lee, Eun Kyoung, Sung, Jung Youp, Song, Keun Yeong, Yoo, Young Bum, Park, Dong Wook, Sohn, Jeong Eun, Kim, Jae Hong
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Breast implants; Medical records; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Original Article; Otorhinolaryngology; Plastic Surgery; Ultrasonic imaging
• ISSN: 0364-216X; 1432-5241
• DOI: 10.1007/s00266-022-02844-4

Background We previously proposed a novel method for detecting a rupture of a breast implant using high-resolution ultrasound (HRUS). We therefore conducted this retrospective, observational study to describe its feasibility in making a preoperative diagnosis of rupture of the device in patients receiving an implant-based augmentation mammaplasty. Methods We initially evaluated the medical records of the patients who had received primary or secondary augmentation mammaplasty using a breast implant at other hospitals for aesthetic or reconstructive purposes between August 31, 2017, and August 31, 2020. The patients underwent breast US using the Aplio i600 (Canon Medical System, Otawara, Tochigi, Japan) system with a 7–18 MHz linear transducer. Through a retrospective review of the patients’ medical records, we analyzed their baseline and clinical characteristics. Then, we compared an agreement between preoperative diagnosis of rupture on HRUS and findings at reoperation. Results A total of 29 patients with rupture (55 breasts) were evaluated for the performance of ultrasound in making a diagnosis of rupture. This showed that they were unaware of rupture but they were diagnosed with it on ultrasound. Preoperatively, there were no cases of rupture in 110 left breasts (80.9%) and 107 right breasts (78.7%), which exactly matched to the number of breasts without rupture on HRUS. Moreover, preoperatively, there were 26 (19.1%) and 29 cases (21.3%) of rupture in the left and right breast, respectively, which exactly matched to the number of breasts with rupture on HRUS. Conclusions In conclusion, patients who are suspected of having rupture of a breast implant should be stringently evaluated for presence of rupture and, if any, its scope using HRUS. Moreover, we propose that surgeons consider using HRUS in making a preoperative diagnosis of rupture of a breast implant. Level of Evidence III This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .