Journal of breast imaging · 2024
Breast Implant Imaging Surveillance Practice: Survey of Breast Imaging Radiologists in the Society of Breast Imaging.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Moosavi Ali, Ha Jason, Papoutsis Brianna, Lehman Erik, Chetlen Alison, Choe Angela I
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this Society of Breast Imaging (SBI)-member survey study were to assess the current imaging patterns for evaluation of symptomatic and asymptomatic breast implant integrity, including modalities used and imaging intervals.
METHODS: A 12-question survey assessing the frequency of imaging modalities used to evaluate implant integrity, approximate number of breast implant integrity studies requested per month, intervals of integrity studies, and referring provider and radiology practice characteristics was distributed to members of the SBI.
RESULTS: The survey response rate was 7.6% (143/1890). Of responding radiologists, 54.2% (77/142) were in private, 29.6% (42/142) in academic, and 16.2% (23/142) in hybrid practice. Among respondents, the most common initial examination for evaluating implant integrity was MRI without contrast at 53.1% (76/143), followed by handheld US at 46.9% (67/143). Of respondents using US, 67.4% (91/135) also evaluated the breast tissue for abnormalities. Among respondents, 34.1% (46/135) reported being very confident or confident in US for diagnosing implant rupture. There was a range of reported intervals for performing implant integrity studies: 39.1% (43/110) every 2-3 years, 26.4% (29/110) every 4-5 years, 15.5% (17/110) every 6-10 years, and 19.1% (21/110) every 10 years.
CONCLUSION: For assessment of implant integrity, the majority of respondents (53.2%, 76/143) reported MRI as initial imaging test. US is less costly, but the minority of respondents (34.1%, 46/135) had confidence in US performance. Also, the minority of respondents (39.1%, 43/110) performed implant integrity evaluations every 2-3 years per the FDA recommendations for asymptomatic surveillance.
METHODS: A 12-question survey assessing the frequency of imaging modalities used to evaluate implant integrity, approximate number of breast implant integrity studies requested per month, intervals of integrity studies, and referring provider and radiology practice characteristics was distributed to members of the SBI.
RESULTS: The survey response rate was 7.6% (143/1890). Of responding radiologists, 54.2% (77/142) were in private, 29.6% (42/142) in academic, and 16.2% (23/142) in hybrid practice. Among respondents, the most common initial examination for evaluating implant integrity was MRI without contrast at 53.1% (76/143), followed by handheld US at 46.9% (67/143). Of respondents using US, 67.4% (91/135) also evaluated the breast tissue for abnormalities. Among respondents, 34.1% (46/135) reported being very confident or confident in US for diagnosing implant rupture. There was a range of reported intervals for performing implant integrity studies: 39.1% (43/110) every 2-3 years, 26.4% (29/110) every 4-5 years, 15.5% (17/110) every 6-10 years, and 19.1% (21/110) every 10 years.
CONCLUSION: For assessment of implant integrity, the majority of respondents (53.2%, 76/143) reported MRI as initial imaging test. US is less costly, but the minority of respondents (34.1%, 46/135) had confidence in US performance. Also, the minority of respondents (39.1%, 43/110) performed implant integrity evaluations every 2-3 years per the FDA recommendations for asymptomatic surveillance.