Evaluation of anatomical and round breast implant aesthetics and preferences in Dutch young lay and plastic surgeon cohort

Publication date: Available online 16 April 2018
Source:Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery
Author(s): Patrick P. Bletsis, Lesley R. Bouwer, Klaas H. Ultee, Michel Cromheecke, Berend van der Lei
BackgroundLiterature remains inconclusive on the attractiveness and natural aspect of anatomical breast implants and, so far, studies have failed to demonstrate the visible difference in practice as compared to round ones. This study was undertaken to evaluate: (1) whether lay and professional participants can distinguish between breasts augmented with either round or anatomical breast implants, (2) their opinion with regard to naturalness and attractiveness of these augmented breasts.MethodsTwenty 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 – 400 grams. Ptotic or malformed breasts were excluded. Finally, they had to score the most natural, unnatural, attractive and unattractive breast shape on a schematic depiction of breast types with varying upper poles.ResultsThe 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 significantly more natural by both lay participants and surgeons (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) 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). Participants preferred breasts with a neutral or slightly negative upper pole contour.ConclusionParticipants 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.