What question did this study set out to answer?

The study aims to validate the use of MRI for accurately measuring the volume of in-situ breast implants, assisting in surgical planning.

April 23, 2026European Journal of Plastic Surgery0 citationsOpen Access

Magnetic resonance imaging as a part of standard clinical care for calculating breast implant volume: a validation study on 110 in-situ breast implants

RKRenee KillaarsMaastricht University Medical Centre TNT. van NijnattenMaastricht University Medical Centre DJD. G. E. JanssenMaastricht University Medical Centre

Key Points

The study aims to validate the use of MRI for accurately measuring the volume of in-situ breast implants, assisting in surgical planning.
Retrospective review of 69 MRI images involving 110 silicone breast implants.
Measurements performed by two independent radiology residents on T2-weighted images using Syngo.via software.
Gold standard volume obtained from surgical reports post-explantation.
Average implant volume measured was 354 cc with a standard deviation of 119 cc.
MRI measurements showed an absolute difference of 38 cc and a relative difference of 10.8% from surgical metrics.
Illustrated strong correlation (ICC = 0.992) and statistical significance in differences, p < 0.001.

Abstract

Breast implants are widely used by plastic surgeons for both reconstructive and cosmetic procedures. Women with implants are advised to have Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) to check breast implant integrity. In case revision surgery is needed, implant volume and type are often unknown. MRI could then be used for measuring in-situ breast implant volume. This information is useful when planning revision surgery. A retrospective review of 69 MR images with 110 silicone breast implants was performed. Two independent, blinded radiology residents performed measurements on the T2-weighted images. Contours of the breast implant were delineated as a region of interest (ROI) and the software Syngo.via (Siemens Healthcare GmbH) generated a continuous volume of interest (VOI), computed in cubic centimeters. Gold standard volume was retrieved from surgery reports after explantation. The average implant volume was 354 cc (SD 119). The absolute difference between implant size and MRI measurement was 38 cc (SD 23) and the relative difference was 10.8% (SD 7). The differences were significantly different (p < 0.001). There was a strong linear regression between the two variables. Interobserver reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.992). We conclude that MRI as a volumetric tool for measuring implant volume in-situ is a reliable tool and can easily be applied in clinical practice. Based on 110 measurements, MRI overestimated implant volume by 10.8% but correlated strongly with the gold standard. This MRI technique is simple to learn, reproducible, and can be added as part of standard care in breast implant care in plastic surgery. Level of Evidence: Level III, diagnostic study.

Perguntar à IA

Bookmark

View Full Paper