Advertisement

Diagnostic Imaging in Silicone Injection Patients

  • Carlos Mariano Lamattina
  • Lucía Beccar Varela
  • Florencia Meléndez
  • Soledad Nocetti
Chapter

Abstract

Throughout history, different methods have been used to satisfy women’s desire to increase the size of their breasts. Several different injectable substances have been employed for direct injection to increase breast volume, including paraffin, petroleum derivatives, vegetable oils, and silicone. Of these, the free injection of liquid silicone has been used most frequently, especially throughout the 1950s and 1960s, because it was considered an “inert” material, meaning that it should result in fewer complications.

This chapter details the various ways by which free silicone is recognized and differentiated from other injected substances, in mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance images; how its presence interferes with these commonly used diagnostic tools’ ability to recognize breast pathology; and the knowledge necessary in clinical practice to reach accurate diagnoses when silicone is present. It should be noted that the most common objective of the above-listed breast-imaging methods is to diagnose breast cancer early and that interfering with this risks patients’ quality of life and survival.

Although mammography and ultrasound are readily accessible diagnostic tools that allow clinicians to diagnose siliconomas with virtual certainty, contrast-enhanced MRI is the method of choice to study silicone-related complications. It also is the diagnostic tool that must be used for breast cancer detection.

Keywords

Axillary lymphatic region Gadolinium Lipo-transference Diagnostic imaging Ultrasound Snowstorm image MRI Mammography Infiltrating carcinoma Siliconomas 

Bibliography

  1. 1.
    Minagi H, Youker JE, Knudson HW. The roentgen appearance of injected silicone in the breast. Radiology. 1968;90:57–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Venkataraman S, Hines N, Slanetz PJ. Challenges in mammography: part 2, multimodality review of breast augmentation- imaging findings and complications. AJR. 2011;197:1031–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Helbich TH, Wunderbaldinger P, Plenk H, et al. The value of MRI in silicone granuloma of the breast. Eur J Radiol. 1997;24:155–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kopans DB. Breast imaging. 2ª ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scaranelo AM, de Fatima Ribeiro Maia M. Sonographic and mammographic findings of breast liquid silicone injection. J Clin Ultrasound. 2006;34:273–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Glynn C, Litherland J. Imaging breast augmentation and reconstruction. Br J Radiol. 2008;81(967):587–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caskey CI, Berg WA, Hamper UM, et al. Imaging spectrum of extracapsular silicone: correlation of US, MR imaging, mammographic and histopathologic findings. Radiographics. 1999;19:39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Puliti D, Zappa M. Breast cancer screening: are we seeing the benefit? BMC Med. 2012;10:106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Medical Advisory Secretariat. Cancer screening with digital mammography for women at average risk for breast cancer, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for women at high risk: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2010;10(3):1–55. http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/mas/tech/reviews/pdf/rev_breast_cancer_screening_20100316.pdf [Consult: June 2016].PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berg WA, Caskey CI, Hamper UM, Anderson ND, Chang BW, Sheth S, et al. Diagnosis breast implant rupture with MR imaging, US, and mammography. Radiographics. 1993;13(6):1323–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leibman AJ, Sybers R. Mammographic and sonographic findings after silicone injection. Ann Plast Surg. 1994;33(4):412–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leibman AJ, Misra M. Spectrum of imaging findings in the silicone injected breast. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(1):28–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yang N, Muradali D. The augmented breast: a pictorial review of the abnormal and unusual. AJR. 2011;196:451–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boo-Chai K. The complications of augmentation mammoplasty by silicone injection. Br J Plastic Surgery. 1969;22(3):281–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stavros AT, Rapp CL. Indicaciones no dirigidas: implantes mamarios. En: Ecografía de Mama. Madrid: Marban; 2006. p. 199–275.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rivero MA, Schwartz DS, Miles C. Silicone lymphadenopathy involving intramammary lymph nodes: a new complication of silicone mammaplasty. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;162(5):1089–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuhl C. The current status of breast MR imaging part I. choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology. 2007;244(2):356–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hylton NM. Breast magnetic resonance imaging technics. In: Morris EA, Liberman L, editors. Breast MRI. Diagnosis and intervention. New York: Springer; 2005. p. 7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Travis D, Balogh K, Abraham JL. Silicone granulomas: report of three cases and review of the literature. Hum Pathol. 1985;16(1):19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peng HL, Wu CC, Choi WM, et al. Breast cancer detection using magnetic resonance imaging in breasts injected with liquid silicone. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104(7):2116–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Youk JH, Son EJ, Kim EK, et al. Diagnosis of breast cancer at dynamic MRI in patients with breast augmentation by paraffin or silicone injection. Clin Radiol. 2009;64:1175–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cheung YC, Su MY, Nq SH, Lee KF, Chen SC, Lo YF. Lumpy silicone-injected breasts: enhanced MRI and microscopic correlation. Clin Imaging. 2002;26:397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Raza S, Birdwell RL, Ritner JA, et al. Especialidades en imagen: RM de mama. Madrid: Marbán; 2012.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pulagam SR, Poulton T, Mamounas EP. Long-term clinical and radiologic results with autologous fat transplantation for breast augmentation: case reports and review of the literature. Breast J. 2006;12(1):63–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mu DL, Luan J, Mu L, Xin MQ. Breast augmentation by autologous fat injection grafting: management and clinical analysis of complications. Ann Plast Surg. 2009;63:124–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Teo SY, Wang S. Radiologic features of polyacrylamide gel mammoplasty. AJR. 2008;191:89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lui CY, Ho CM, Lu PP, et al. Evaluation of MRI findings after polyacrylamide gel injection for breast augmentation. AJR. 2006;191:677–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Erguvan-Dogan B, Yang WT. Direct injection of paraffin into the breast: mammographic, sonographic, and MRI features of early complications. AJR. 2006;186(3):888–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schenone GE. Siliconomas Mamarios por Inyección: Clínica, Diagnóstico y tratamiento. Buenos Aires: Ed. Journal. 2017. p. 23–33.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos Mariano Lamattina
    • 1
  • Lucía Beccar Varela
    • 1
  • Florencia Meléndez
    • 1
  • Soledad Nocetti
    • 1
  1. 1.Diagnóstico MaipúBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations