Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39022001›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Ultrasound versus MRI for evaluation of silicone leakage from silicone breast implants.

Karlinde A Spit, Siham Azahaf, Christel J M de Blok, Katya M Duvivier, Oliver T Wiebenga, Prabath W B Nanayakkara

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. The Role of Positron Emission Tomography Imaging in Breast Implant Illness.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Karlinde A SpitSection General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, location VUmc, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Siham AzahafSection General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, location VUmc, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Christel J M de BlokSection General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, location VUmc, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Katya M DuvivierDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, location VUmc, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Oliver T WiebengaDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, location VUmc, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Prabath W B NanayakkaraSection General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, location VUmc, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Implant ruptures and gel bleed are not uncommon among women with silicone breast implants. While magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is traditionally considered the gold standard diagnostic modality, recent studies suggest ultrasound might be an acceptable alternative. This study compares the efficacy of ultrasound and MRI in assessing implant integrity. Methods: Women with silicone breast implants underwent a breast and axillary ultrasound and MRI on the same day. All tests were assessed by experienced radiologists. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of ultrasound and MRI for implant rupture detection and silicone depositions in axillary lymph nodes were evaluated. Findings: A total of 104 women participated in the study. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of ultrasound for detecting implant ruptures compared to MRI were 96 %, 95 %, and 96 %, respectively. MRI demonstrated significantly lower sensitivity (44 %) for detecting silicone depositions in axillary lymph nodes compared to ultrasound. A significant association was observed between the presence of enlarged axillary lymph nodes and/or axillary pain and the detection of silicone depositions in axillary lymph nodes on ultrasound (χ Interpretation: Ultrasound is nearly as effective as MRI for detecting breast implant ruptures and is superior for detecting silicone depositions in axillary lymph nodes. We therefore recommend initiating radiological examination in women with breast implants with a breast and axillary ultrasound, proceeding to MRI only if the ultrasound is inconclusive. The prevalence of gel bleed is understudied and its potential adverse health effects might be underestimated. Further research is needed to explore its potential association with development of systemic symptoms.

Indexed as

Implant ruptureMRISilicone breast implantsSilicone depositionsUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID39022001
PMCPMC11253520

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.