Abstract
Patient dissatisfaction with breast size after breast implant surgery can lead to early secondary procedures in a minority of cases. Different systems of sizing a patient preoperatively have been proposed, including detailed measurements and computer-assisted assessment. Whatever system is used, a surgeon needs to obtain feedback to ascertain that the system is effective at producing a satisfactory outcome. In this study, 137 patients who underwent breast augmentation by a single surgeon were prospectively assessed for a 12-week period after surgery to determine their satisfaction with their breast size. Both expectations and desire to change implant size were assessed. Early (week 1) expectations of the patients were a good predictor of their long-term assessment 12 weeks after surgery and their desire to change their implant size. The patients with a greater body mass index (BMI) and larger implant volume were more likely to express a desire for a change in implant size early in the postoperative course. The findings showed that 19.4 % (26/134) of the patients wished to have larger implants by 12 weeks after surgery and that 3.7 % (5/134) felt smaller implants would be preferable. The information produced by this audit is important to the provision of future informed consent for this surgeon. Without similar data from their individual practices, surgeons cannot provide patients with an accurate assessment of their satisfaction after breast augmentation surgery. A similar undertaking is strongly recommended for surgeons performing breast implant surgery.
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brown T (2012) Subfascial breast augmentation: is there any advantage over the submammary plane? Aesthetic Plast Surg 36:566–569
Choudry U, Kim N (2012) Preoperative assessment preferences and reported reoperation rates for size change in primary breast augmentation: a survey of ASPS members. Plast Reconstr Surg 130:1352–1359
Dionyssiou DD, Demiri EC, Davison JA (2005) A simple method for determining the breast implant size in augmentation mammaplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 229:571–573
Gladilin E, Gabrielova B, Montemurro P, Heden P (2001) Customized planning of augmentation mammoplasty with silicone implants using three-dimensional optical body scans and biochemical modelling of soft tissue outcomes. Aesthetic Plast Surg 35:494–501
Gore SM, Lamberty BG (2011) PERTHESE: implant-identical cohesive-gel sizers in breast augmentation: a prospective report on 200 consecutive cases and implication for treatment of breast asymmetry. Aesthetic Surg J 31:914–924
Hidalgo DA, Spector JA (2010) Preoperative sizing in breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 125:1781–1787
Hidalgo DA, Spectator JA (2011) Reply: bra stuffing for implant sizing? Satisfaction? Who, when, and compared to what? Plast Reconstr Surg 127:1002–1003
Karabulut AB, Ozden BC, Arinci A (2008) A nomogram for predicting the degree of breast augmentation according to implant size. Aesthetic Plast Surg 32:289–300
Pereira LH, Stereodimas A (2007) A definite size of the augmented breast could be up to a breast cup smaller than the early postoperative size. Aesthetic Plast Surg 31:759
Tebetts 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
Tebetts JB (2011) Bra stuffing for implant sizing? Satisfaction? Who, when, and compared to what? Plast Reconstr Surg 127:1001–1002
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Jamie Moore for his invaluable assistance with the statistical analysis in this report.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brown, T. Patient Expectations After Breast Augmentation: The Imperative to Audit Your Sizing System. Aesth Plast Surg 37, 1134–1139 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-013-0214-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-013-0214-1