Search

Introduction: Breast implants follow-up with any type of examination is often neglected; this may cause an error or delay in the diagnosis of complications prosthesis-related such as BIA-ALCL. This study aims to better understand adequate follow-up criteria., Method: All female patients undergoing aesthetic breast augmentation and breast MRI in its follow-up conducted from April 2006 to December 2019 were included in this study. The variables analyzed were age, breast implant surgery date, time with the implant, reason for the examination, and the final examination report. A logistic regression analysis was conducted to search for the predictors of positive findings in MRI. A Cox Regression analysis and cumulative risk curves, controlled by age, was performed to investigate the relationship between time with implants and the risk of positive findings in MRI., Results: The patients submitted to MRI had complaints in 29.6% of cases, with pain being the most common, 13.9% of cases. In logistic regression analysis, time with the implant was associated with a higher risk of positive findings in univariate analysis (OR = 1.07, p = 0.036), but not in multivariate analysis. Both pain and breast form changes were independent predictors for positive findings in MRI, OR = 2.79, p = 0.04, and OR = 16.98, p < 0.001, respectively. The cumulative risk of positive findings in MRI increased considerably only after 10 years of implantation., Conclusions: Time with breast implants may be associated with a higher risk of changes in breast MRI examinations, although this relationship was not significant in multivariate logistic regression analysis. The cumulative risk for positive findings seems to increase considerably only after 10 years of implantation. This study draws attention to the paramount importance of follow-up with a clinical breast examination. Despite time with implants or patients' age, both pain and breast form changes were the most important predictors for MRI alterations., Level of Evidence Iv: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .