ArticleGland surgery2023
False-positive diagnoses of damaged breast implants on imaging: a report of two cases.
Article in Gland surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ultrasound Elastography and Tonometry as Predictive Tools for Capsular Contracture After Breast Implant Surgery: Over a 12-Month Prospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Silicone breast implants (SBIs), used in breast reconstruction, are durable and resistant to breakage and internal gel leakage. However, regular imaging examinations are crucial, as symptoms may not be apparent even if the implant ruptures. There are several known imaging findings that suggest SBI failure. Although artifacts such as moisture and air bubbles or substances similar to the gel extending outside the shell may appear on imaging, no reports have demonstrated false-positive diagnoses of damaged SBIs in detail. Hence, we present two cases in which failure was suspected based on the imaging results but not confirmed. Case Description: In case 1, at the 4-year follow-up after implant-based breast reconstruction, ultrasonography revealed a stepladder sign, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed the salad oil sign. Although SBI failure was suggested, intraoperative examination revealed only a small amount of fluid retention within the capsule and no SBI fractures. Consequently, the imaging results were proved to be artifacts. In case 2, at the 7-year follow-up after implant-based breast reconstruction, ultrasonography revealed a subcapsular line sign, and MRI confirmed a keyhole sign. Although SBI failure was suggested, intraoperative examination revealed no implant fractures. Hematogenous serous effusion was found within the capsule, and blood clots and a large amount of fibrinous mass were found deposited at the bottom of the capsule. These findings caused false-positive diagnoses on imaging. Conclusions: In cases of suspected fractures, patients may opt for either observation or surgical removal, or replacement of the implant. When choosing the latter, it is important to inform patients of the possibility of an unbroken implant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.