MedElevator
Войти в исследования Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987) · 2004
Ultrasonography in follow-up of soft tissue augmentation of the face with synthetic materials: a pilot study.
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.
Giovagnorio F, Drudi F M, Valentini C, Paonessa A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess ultrasonography in the evaluation of reactions after soft tissue augmentation of the face with synthetic materials.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six female patients (mean age 39+/-8 years) treated for facial tissue augmentation noticed unpleasant or painful effects in the intervention site after a mean of 24 months were evaluated with ultrasonography. Two patients had been treated with injections of microparticles, two with Gore-Tex implants, and two had been injected with liquid silicone. Fifteen female patients (age 27-55 years, mean 41+/-14 years) who had received the same treatment 14-48 months before without any complications were also evaluated and used as controls. Biopsy was performed in all patients, while four underwent re-intervention.
RESULTS: In all patients with Gore-Tex implants, a thick, homogeneous hypoechoic halo was seen surrounding the implants. Small hypoechoic nodules were noticed in the patients who had been treated with microparticles and with liquid silicone. In two cases treated with liquid silicone the subcutaneous tissue was invaded by an irregular area of marked inhomogeneity.
CONCLUSION: Sonography must be considered the method of choice for producing instrumental evidence of foreign body reactions after soft tissue augmentation of the face with synthetic materials.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six female patients (mean age 39+/-8 years) treated for facial tissue augmentation noticed unpleasant or painful effects in the intervention site after a mean of 24 months were evaluated with ultrasonography. Two patients had been treated with injections of microparticles, two with Gore-Tex implants, and two had been injected with liquid silicone. Fifteen female patients (age 27-55 years, mean 41+/-14 years) who had received the same treatment 14-48 months before without any complications were also evaluated and used as controls. Biopsy was performed in all patients, while four underwent re-intervention.
RESULTS: In all patients with Gore-Tex implants, a thick, homogeneous hypoechoic halo was seen surrounding the implants. Small hypoechoic nodules were noticed in the patients who had been treated with microparticles and with liquid silicone. In two cases treated with liquid silicone the subcutaneous tissue was invaded by an irregular area of marked inhomogeneity.
CONCLUSION: Sonography must be considered the method of choice for producing instrumental evidence of foreign body reactions after soft tissue augmentation of the face with synthetic materials.