乳房聚丙烯酰胺水凝胶与硅胶假体向邻近组织浸润的磁共振对比  

MR comparison of infiltration of hydrophilic polyacrylamide gel and silicone breast implants

作　　者：丁宁[1] 孔令燕[1] 金征宇[1] 蔡丰[1] 姜波[1] 龙笑[2] 余楠泽 朱琳[2] 薛华丹[1] DING Ning;KONG Ling-yan;JIN Zheng-Yu;CAI Feng;JIANG Bo;LONG Xiao;YU Nan-ze;ZHU Lin;XUE Hua-dan(Department of Radiology,Peking Union Medical College Hospital,Beijing 100730,China)

机构地区：[1]北京协和医院放射科,北京100730 [2]北京协和医院整形美容外科,北京100730

出　　处：《影像诊断与介入放射学》2018年第4期283-287,共5页Diagnostic Imaging & Interventional Radiology

基　　金：影像精准诊疗新技术研发和转化应用(项目编号2017PT32004)

摘　　要：目的对比分析乳房注射假体聚丙烯酰胺水凝胶(polyacrylamide gel,PAAG)和硅胶假体形态、向乳房边缘、腺体、胸大肌浸润特性。方法对我院2014年～2017年行乳腺MRI的患者进行回顾性分析,收集PAAG注射术后行乳腺MRI检查的患者20人,共40只乳房,对照组硅胶假体患者14人,共27只乳房。进行3.0 T磁共振扫描,选择T2WI及T1WI增强序列进行假体形态及浸润范围的判定。结果 55%乳房的PAAG假体内侧边缘位于中线旁3 cm的"危险区"内(左侧10例;右侧11例),其中一位患者双乳PAAG在胸骨前间隙相连通。对照组硅胶假体仅有3.7%(右侧1例)浸润至危险区内。另外PAAG假体形态、外侧浸润及深部浸润情况都更严重,与对照组有明显差异。结论 PAAG注射隆胸的患者,假体更分散,浸润范围更广,大部分其PAAG内侧缘已经浸润至手术危险区内,可能对假体的完全清除造成阻碍。Objective To compare the infiltration of hydrophilic polyactylamide gel （PAAG） and silicone breast implants. Methods 20 women （40 breasts） who received bilateral PAAG injection and 14 women （27 breasts） with silicone implants underwent 3T magnetic resonance imaging （MRI） from January 2014 to June 2017. Axial T2- and contrast-enhanced Ti-weighted MRI was performed for infiltration evaluation. Results In 55% of the women, the distance of medial margin of PAAG to midline was smaller than 3 cm, which was considered to be within the dangerous zone for surgical medial pocket. The PAAG of both breasts was connected anterior to the sternum in one woman. Infiltration in the dangerous zone was observed in 1/27 breasts with silicone implants. Infiltrations in other directions by PAAG were all more severe than that by silicone. Conclusion PAAG infiltrates more extensively in all directions including medially within the surgery dangerous zone, which can be difficult to remove.

关 键 词：聚丙烯酰胺水凝胶假体 硅胶假体 乳房假体 磁共振成像 

分 类 号：R445.2[医药卫生—影像医学与核医学] R622[医药卫生—诊断学]