Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

À¯¹æ »ðÀÔ¹°°ú ¿¬°üµÈ ÇÕº´ÁõÀÇ ÀÚ±â°ø¸í ¿µ»ó¼Ò°ß MRI of Breast Implant-related Complications

´ëÇѹæ»ç¼±ÀÇÇÐȸÁö 1998³â 38±Ç 6È£ p.1129 ~ 1134
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
Á¤½ÂÇý ±¹½ÅÈ£/±èÁ¾¿í/¾È¼º¿­/Â÷µ¿¼·/Ȳ±Íȯ/¹è¿ø±æ/¹Ú¿ë·¡/ÀÌ¿µ¿í

Abstract

¸ñ Àû : ¹Ì¿ëÀ» ¸ñÀûÀ¸·Î »ðÀÔ¹°À» »ç¿ëÇÏ¿© À¯¹æÈ®´ë ¼ºÇü¼úÀ» ½ÃÇàÇÑ ÈÄ µ¿¹ÝµÈ ÇÕº´Áõ
ÀÇ ¼ö¼úÀü Áø´Ü¿¡ À־ ÀÚ±â°ø¸í ¿µ»óÀÇ ¼Ò°ß°ú ±× À¯¿ë¼º¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿© ¾Ë¾Æº¸°íÀÚ ÇÏ¿´´Ù.
´ë»ó ¹× ¹æ¹ý : À¯¹æ »ðÀÔ¹°¿¡ ÀÇÇÑ ÇÕº´ÁõÀ» È£¼ÒÇÏ¿© »ðÀÔ¹° Á¦°Å¸¦ ¸ñÀûÀ¸·Î ¼ö¼úÀü ÀÚ
±â°ø¸í¿µ»ó °Ë»ç¸¦ ½ÃÇà¹ÞÀº 17¸íÀÇ 34 À¯¹æÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ÇÏ¿© ÀÚ±â°ø¸í¿µ»ó¼Ò°ßÀ» ºÐ¼®ÇÏ°í
±× °á°ú¸¦ ¼ö¼ú ¼Ò°ß°ú ºñ±³ÇÏ¿´´Ù. 34¿¹Áß 8¿¹¿¡¼­ »ðÀÔ¹°ÆÄ¿­·Î ¹Ýº¹ ¼ö¼úÀ» ½ÃÇàÇÏ¿´°í
8¿¹¿¡¼­ »ðÀÔ¹°°ú ÇÔ²² ½Ç¸®ÄÜ ½ÇÁúÁÖÀԽüúÀ» ¹ÞÀº °ú°Å·ÂÀÌ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù.
°á °ú : 34 À¯¹æÁß MRI ¼Ò°ß»ó linguine sign 8¿¹, À¯¹æ½ÇÁú³» ½Ç¸®ÄÜ 17¿¹, °¨¿° 3¿¹, Àå¾×
Á¾ 2¿¹, À§Ä¡À̵¿ 2¿¹¸¦ °üÂûÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç 32¿¹ÀÇ ¼ö¼ú ¼Ò°ß»ó ½ÇÁ¦ »ðÀÔ¹°ÀÇ ÆÄ¿­Àº 10¿¹(ÇǸ·
¿Ü ÆÄ¿­ 9¿¹, ÇǸ·³» ÆÄ¿­ 1¿¹)¿¡¼­ µ¿¹ÝµÇ¾ú´Ù. »ðÀÔ¹° ÆÄ¿­ ¹× ´©ÃâÀÇ ¼Ò°ßÀÎ linguine
signÀÇ ¹Î°¨µµ, ƯÀ̵µ, Á¤È®µµ°¡ 80%, 100%, 93.8%·Î ³ô¾ÒÀ¸¸ç, À¯¹æ½ÇÁú¿¡¼­ À¯¸®µÈ ½Ç¸®
ÄÜ ¹ß°ßÀÇ °æ¿ì ¹Î°¨µµ 90%·Î ³ô¾ÒÀ¸³ª, ƯÀ̵µ ¹× Á¤È®µµ°¡ 63.7%, 71.9%·Î ºñ±³Àû ³·¾Ò
´Âµ¥ ÀÌ´Â ½Ç¸®ÄÜ ½ÇÁú ÁÖÀÔÀ̳ª ÀÌÀü »ðÀÔ¹°ÀÇ ÆÄ¿­·Î ÀÎÇÑ ÀÜ¿©¹°°úÀÇ °¨º°¿¡ ¾î·Á¿òÀÌ
ÀÖ¾ú±â ¶§¹®ÀÌ´Ù. MRI´Â ´Ù¸é¿µ»óÀ» ÅëÇÏ¿© »ðÀÔ¹°ÀÇ À§Ä¡º¯È­, ¿ÜÇǸ· ÆÄ¿­·Î ÀÎÇÑ ½Ç¸®ÄÜ
ÀÇ È®»ê¹üÀ§, ½ÇÁú³» ½Ç¸®ÄÜ À°¾ÆÁ¾ÀÇ À§Ä¡¸¦ ½±°Ô ¾Ë ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ÀÌÇÐÀû °Ë»ç½ÃÀÇ ¿¬ÃàÀÇ
Á¤µµ¿Í ÀÚ±â°ø¸í¿µ»ó °Ë»ç»óÀÇ ¿¬ÃàÀÇ Á¤µµ, ¶ÇÇÑ ¿¬ÃàÀÇ ½ÉÇÑ Á¤µµ¿¡ µû¸¥ »ðÀÔ¹°ÀÇ ÆÄ¿­
ºóµµ´Â ºñ±³Àû ¿¬°ü¼ºÀÌ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù.
°á ·Ð : »ðÀÔ¹°À» »ç¿ëÇÑ À¯¹æÈ®´ë¼ºÇü¼ú¿¡ µ¿¹ÝµÈ ÇÕº´ÁõÀ» Æò°¡Çϴµ¥ À־ ¼ö¼úÀü ÀÚ
±â°ø¸í ¿µ»ó °Ë»ç´Â »ó±âÇÑ ¼Ò°ßµé·Î¼­ ÇÕº´ÁõÀÇ Á¤È®ÇÑ Áø´Ü¿¡ ¸Å¿ì À¯¿ëÇÏ¿´´Ù.
#ÃÊ·Ï#
Purpose : To assess the usefulness of MRI in the preoperative diagnosis of breast
implant-related complications.
Materials and Methods : Thirty four breast implants in 17 patients were examined.
Eight breasts had a history of repeated surgery due to rupture and in eight others,
simultaneous interstitial silicone injection had been performed. MR images of the 34
implants were prospectively analyzed for implant-related complications, without prior
clinical information, and the findings were compared with the results of surgery.
Results : The implant-related complications seen on MRI were infections in three
cases, seromas in two, and implant malposition in two. The linguine sign was seen in
eight cases and intraparenchymal silicone in 17. Among the 32 removed implants,
rupture was genuine in ten cases (nine, extracapsular ; one, intracapsular). In evaluating
the MR findings of implant rupture, the linguine sign showed 80% sensitivity, 100%
specificity and 93.8% accuracy. Intraparenchymal silicon also revealed high sensitivity
(90%), but relatively low specificity and accuracy (63.7% and 71.9%, respectively) ; this
was due to the difficulty of differentiating granulomas still present after a previous
rupture from injected silicone material. MRI was useful for visualization of implant
migration, the direct relationship of extended or extruded silicone in extracapsular
rupture and the localization of silcone granulomas, as seen on multiplanar images. The
extent of infection was clearly demonstrated on contrast enhanced scan. There was
relatively good correlation between the degree of contracture seen on physical
examination and that seen on MRI.
Conclusion : MRI was an effective and useful method for the preoperative evaluation of
implant-related complications ; degree of contracture was successfully predicted.

Å°¿öµå

Breast; MR; Breast; prostheses;

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KoreaMed
KAMS