Evaluation of anatomical and round breast implant aesthetics and preferences in Dutch young lay and plastic surgeon cohort. Issue 8 (August 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bletsis, Patrick P.; Bouwer, Lesley R.; Ultee, Klaas H.; Cromheecke, Michel; van der Lei, Berend
• Is Part Of: Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery. Volume 71:Issue 8(2018)
• Page Start: 1116
• Page End: 1122
• Publication Date: 2018-08
• Subjects: Breast augmentation -- Anatomical breast implant -- Round breast implant -- Saline breast implant -- Breast aesthetics; Surgery, Plastic -- Great Britain -- Periodicals; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Great Britain -- Periodicals; 617.9505
• DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2018.04.010
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1748-6815

Abstract

Summary: Background: Literature remains inconclusive on the attractiveness and natural aspect of anatomical breast implants, and thus far, studies have failed to demonstrate the visible difference in implants that are in practice compared to those that are round. This study was undertaken to evaluate (1) whether lay and professional participants can distinguish between breasts augmented with either round or anatomical breast implants and (2) their opinion with regard to naturalness and attractiveness of these augmented breasts. Methods: Twenty breast augmentations (10 anatomical and 10 round implants), each depicted by two postoperative pictures, were scored by 100 lay participants and 15 plastic surgeons. Implant volume ranged from 275 to 400 g. Ptotic or malformed breasts were excluded. Finally, they had to score the most natural, unnatural, attractive, and unattractive breast shapes on a schematic depiction of breast types with varying upper poles. Results: The rate of correct implant identifications was 74.0% (1480/2000 observations, p < 0.001) in the lay and 67.3% (202/300 observations, p < 0.001) in the surgeon cohort. Breasts with anatomical implants were rated as significantly more natural (3.3 ± 1.0 vs. 2.6 ± 1.0, p < 0.001 and 3.3 ± 1.0 vs. 2.2 ± 0.9, p < 0.001, respectively) and more attractive (3.1 ± 1.0 vs. 2.6 ± 1.0, p < 0.001 and 3.6 ± 0.9 vs. 2.7 ± 0.9, p < 0.001, respectively) versus round implants by both lay participants and surgeons. Participants preferred breasts with a neutral or slightly negative upper pole contour. Conclusion: Participants were able to distinguish between the results achieved with either anatomical or round textured Allergan breast implants and found augmented breasts with the anatomical implants more natural and attractive.