Skip to main content
Log in

Invited Discussion on: A Prospective Study of Breast Morphological Changes and the Correlative Factors After Periareolar Dual-Plane Augmentation Mammaplasty with Anatomic Implant

  • Editor’s Invited Commentary
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Nipshagen MD, Beekman WH, Esmé DL, de Becker J (2007) Anatomically shaped breast prosthesis in vivo: a change of dimension? Aesth Plast Surg 31:540–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hamas RS (1999) The postoperative shape of round and teardrop saline-filled breast implants. Aesthet Surg J 5:369–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hidalgo DA (2000) Breast augmentation: choosing the optimal incision, implant, and pocket plane. Plast Reconstr Surg 105:2202–2216

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cheng F, Cen Y, Liu C, Liu R, Pan C, Dai S (2019) Round versus anatomical implants in primary cosmetic breast augmentation: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg 143(3):711–721. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005371

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. van der Lei B, Stevens HP (2020) Round versus anatomical implants in primary cosmetic breast augmentation: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Lett Comment Plast Reconstr Surg 145(2):452e–453e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006447

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hedén P, Montemurro P, Adams WP Jr, Germann G, Scheflan M, Maxwell GP (2015) Anatomical and round breast implants: how to select and indications for use. Plast Reconstr Surg 136:263–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Al-Ajam Y, Marsh DJ, Mohan AT, Hamilton S (2015) Assessing the augmented breast: a blinded study comparing round and ana- tomical form-stable implants. Aesthet Surg J 35:273–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Montemurro P, Cheema M, Hedén P, Agko M, Quattrini Li A, Avvedimento S (2018) Do not fear an implant’s shape: a single surgeon’s experience of over 1200 round and shaped textured implants in primary breast augmentation. Aesthetic Surg J 38(3):254–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Montemurro P, Adams WP Jr, Mallucci P, De Vita R, Layt C, Bradley Calobrace M, Brown MH, Nava MB, Teitelbaum S, Martín JL, del Yerro B, Bengtson GP, Maxwell PH (2020) Why do we need anatomical implants? The science and rationale for maintaining their availability and use in breast surgery. Aesthet Plast Surg 44:253–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ji K, Luan J, Liu C, Mu D, Mu L, Xin M, Sun J, Yin S (2014) Chen L (2014) A prospective study of breast dynamic morphological changes after dual-plane augmentation mammaplasty with 3D scanning technique. PLoS ONE 9(3):e93010. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093010.eCollection

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Benito-Ruiz J, de Cabo F, Manzano M, Salvador L (2019) Effects of silicone implants on the mammary gland: ultrasonographic and 3D study. Aesthet Plast Surg 43:354–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kovacs L, Eder M, Hollweck R, Zimmermann A, Settles M, Schneider A, Udosic K, Schwenzer-Zimmerer K, Papadopulos NA, Biemer E (2006) New aspects of breast volume measurement using 3-dimensional surface imaging. Ann Plast Surg 57:602–610

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kovacs L, Eder M, Zimmermann A, Muller D, Schuster T, Papadopulos NA, Biemer E, Kloppel M, Machens HG (2012) Three-dimensional evaluation of breast augmentation and the influence of anatomic and round implants on operative breast shape changes. Aesthet Plast Surg 36:879–887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tebbetts JB (2002) A system for breast implant selection based on patient tissue characteristics and implant-soft tissue dynamics. Plast Reconstr Surg 109:1396–1409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tebbetts JB, Adams WP (2005) Five critical decisions in breast augmentation using five measurements in 5 minutes: the high five decision support process. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:2005–2016

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tebbetts JB (2006) Achieving a zero percent reoperation rate at 3 years in a 50-consecutive-case augmentation mammaplasty premarket approval study. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:1453–1457

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tebbetts JB, Teitelbaum S (2010) High- and extra-high-projection breast implants: potential consequences for patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 126:2150–2159

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bianca Knoll.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that she has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent is not required for this type of study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Knoll, B. Invited Discussion on: A Prospective Study of Breast Morphological Changes and the Correlative Factors After Periareolar Dual-Plane Augmentation Mammaplasty with Anatomic Implant. Aesth Plast Surg 44, 1977–1979 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01731-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01731-0

Navigation