Abstract
Background
Since their introduction in 1993, anatomic implants have been popularized by numerous surgeons, but very little literature compares the precise indications, advantages, and disadvantages between round implants and anatomic implants.
Methods
A retrospective analysis was performed for all the patients who underwent breast implantation by the main author over a 15-year period. The number of implanted patients, the shape of the implants placed, the approach routes, and the placement plane were determined as well as the relationship between the shape of the implant and the approach route. The aesthetic results obtained were analyzed in detail based on the shape of the implant used.
Results
Over a 15-year period, 932 patients underwent surgery for breast implants. During the first 6 years, only round implants were used, and during the last 9 years, both anatomic and round implants were used. A total of 787 pairs of round implants and 145 pairs of anatomic implants were placed. The indications based on the postoperative aesthetic analysis suggest the use of implants according to their shape.
Conclusions
The use of anatomic implants is suggested for patients with significant differences in chest height and width measurements, for cases of significant mammary asymmetry, for patients with a small breast volume or a prominent thorax, and for breasts with a significant deficit of inferior mammary volume or significant shortening of the breast. The authors recommend round implants for patients with a superior pole deficit or moderate breast pseudoptosis, for patients who have a breast that will cover the implant, and for patients who present with a small asymmetry.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baeke JL (2002) Breast deformity caused by anatomical or teardrop implant rotation. Plast Reconstr Surg 109:2555–2564
Baxter RA (2004) Indications and practical applications for high-profile saline breast implants. Aesth Surg J 24:24–27
Friedman T, Davidovitch N, Scheflan M (2006) Comparative double-blind clinical study on round versus shaped cohesive gel implants. Aesth Surg J 26:530–536
Gampper TJ, Khoury H, Gottlieb W, Morgan RF (2007) Silicone gel implants in breast augmentation and reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 59:581–590
Glicenstein J (2005) History of augmentation mammaplasty. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 50:337–349
Graf RM, Bernardes A, Rippel R, Araujo LR, Damasio RC, Auersvald A (2003) Subfascial breast implant: a new procedure. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:904–908
Hamas R (1999) The postoperative shape of round and teardrop saline-filled breast implants. Aesth Surg J 19:369–374
Hidalgo DA (2000) Breast augmentation: choosing the optimal incision, implant, and pocket plane. Plast Reconstr Surg 105:2202–2216
Hsia HC, Thomson JG (2003) Differences in breast shape preferences between plastic surgeons and patients seeking breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 112:312–320
Niechajev I (2001) Mammary augmentation by cohesive silicone gel implants with anatomic shape: technical considerations. Aesth Plast Surg 25:397–403
Niechajev I, Jurell G, Lohjelm L (2007) Prospective study comparing two brands of cohesive gel breast implants with anatomic shape: 5-year follow-up evaluation. Aesth Plast Surg 31:697–710
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
Sadove R (2003) Cohesive gel naturally shaped breast implants. Aesth Surg J 23:63–66
Spear SL, Bulan EJ, Venturi ML (2006) Breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(7 Suppl):188S–196S
Tebbetts JB (1993) McGhan’s biodimensional augmentation system cohesive gel mammary implants. Instructional Video, 55’, McGhan Medical Corporation, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Tebbetts JB (1998) Use of anatomical breast implants: 10 essentials. Aesth Surg J 18:77–84
Tebbetts JB (2001) The greatest myths in breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:1895–1903
Van Zele D, Heymans O (2004) Breast implants: a review. Acta Chir Belg 104:158–165
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cárdenas-Camarena, L., Encinas-Brambila, J. Round Gel Breast Implants or Anatomic Gel Breast Implants: Which is the Best Choice?. Aesth Plast Surg 33, 743–751 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-009-9370-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-009-9370-8