ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Dedicated Ultrasonography Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Breast Implant Evaluation, Initial Study.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Role of Montelukast in the Prevention and Treatment of Capsular Contracture (Baker Grade III-IV) - A Systematic Review and Case Analysis.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Pooled it
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
Aim: Describe the role of dedicated ultrasound in evaluating breast implants compared to breast magnetic resonance. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted in a single center to evaluate breast implant complications in patients referred to breast magnetic resonance (MRI) scan. All patients who had breast implants submitted to MRI scan were invited to a complementary dedicated ultrasound (US) evaluation of the breast implants. The implant changes were classified following a dedicated protocol. The classifiers used to evaluate the implant include evaluation of implant surface (shell), implant internal content homogeneity, fibrous capsule, intracapsular space, pericapsular space, and axillary extension. Results: Preliminary results included evaluating 29 consecutive patients who underwent MRI. Twenty-nine patients with 49 implants were included in the study. The US showed a superior ability to assess the internal contents of the implants, the implant surface, and the intracapsular contents. There were no significant statistical differences in evaluating macro changes such as implant location, intracapsular collection, and radio-frequency identification (RFID) presence. MRI was superior to the US in classifying the fibrous capsule type. Conclusion: US of silicone implants can be used as an alternative to MRI to evaluate implant complications.
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.