Breast Implant Incision for Women with Small Bust

Around 20 million women have breast implants worldwide, a clear proof of the devices’ popularity among patients who want to improve their appearance or reconstruct their breasts following mastectomy or cancer surgery.

If used for cosmetic reasons, the common goal of patients wanting to have breast implants is to increase their bust size.

The bust size and appearance, natural tissue and fat, type of implant used, goals and expectations, and doctor’s expertise determine the appropriate incision sites in breast implant surgery.

Women with very small breasts (AA cup) should bear in mind that in breast augmentation, the “bigger the better” principle does not apply because of certain risks.  For instance, it is unreasonable and even precarious to use large implants that would give them DD cup due the higher chance of rippling and wrinkling.

And more often than not, small breasts are usually associated with small areola complex, making this incision site not ideal with the use of silicone implants, particularly large ones, because of the higher risk of visible scarring.

Silicone implants require longer incisions than saline implants because they are only available in pre-filled version.

By contrast, saline implants are filled with a sterile mixture of salt and water once inside the breast, for this reason small-breasted women may choose the areola incision if this type of implant is used.

Another good option for women with small bust is the breast crease incision, which is the easiest technique because it allows plastic surgeons to work close to the breasts unlike the armpit and navel incision sites.

However, there is one concern with the use of breast crease incision to augment a small breast.  First and foremost, women with AA cup often lacks a defined “fold” that separates the base of the breast from the chest; for this reason, there is a chance that the scar sits too high or too low that makes it visible.

But because most plastic surgeons are very adept with breast crease incision, low- or high-riding scar rarely occurs.

Meanwhile, the transaxillary or underarm incision is another good substitute for women with small breast and areola particularly if they choose saline implants.  While it is possible to use silicone implants, ideally they should come in small size so they can easily fit into the surgical slit.  

But whether a woman has small or large breast, the transaxillary technique is not used if there is an existing deformity because the distance between the incision and chest area can make the surgery extremely more challenging.  The same is true with the navel incision site. 

The First Woman Who Received Silicone Breast Implants

In the spring of 1962, Timmie Jean Lindsey from Houston, Texas received the first silicone breast implants and turned her from B to C cup.  Meanwhile, the plastic surgeons who operated on her did not realize that this would be one of the most popular cosmetic surgeries worldwide that in 2010 alone, about 1.5 million women had the procedure.

Today, 80-year-old Lindsey said she has no regrets of having breast implants, which have boosted her self-confidence.  However, what is surprising to know is that she never really intended to have a breast augmentation in the first place.

She was in a hospital for tattoo removal when one doctor came to her and asked if she would consider getting the first silicone breast implants.  At first she was reluctant because what she really wanted was a surgery to pin back her ears.

But because the surgeons Frank Gerow and Thomas Cronin offered her ear pinning surgery at no cost, she immediately volunteered for the first-of-its kind operation.

Gerow first came up with the idea of silicone breast implants when he squeezed a plastic blood bag and realized that has an uncanny resemblance to a woman’s breast.

But before the device was implanted in Lindsey’s chest, Gerow and his team first used a dog named Esmeralda as their guinea pig.  The implant was placed under the skin and stayed there for weeks until the surgeons decided to remove it after the animal incessantly chewed the stitches.

After deeming that silicone breast implants were safe, the surgeons operated on Lindsey and other women followed her footstep.

Lindsey said she experienced pain for three or four days following surgery and described her recovery “as like something had been sitting on her chest.”

At first she had no idea of the full results until she went out in public and men gave her “the look” while others would whistle at her.

While breast augmentation resulted to higher self-confidence, Lindsey said that she never revealed it to her past relationships, and her family and friends became only aware of her operation when she told them about it decades later.

Though she remains delighted with the results, she realized thatsilicone implants would not maker her “breasts forever young” and said that they began to sag over the years.

Currently, breast augmentation is the most popular cosmetic plastic surgery in the US, with about 307,000 procedures performed in 2011 alone. 

Thinking About Having Bigger Breast Implants?

As its name suggests, breast augmentation surgery aims to increase the bust size and a fuller appearance especially in the upper and medial cleavage.  However, it does not necessarily mean that you can go as large as you want because several factors can play a role in your ability to accommodate larger implants.

Currently, the biggest implants available are filled with 800 cubic centimeter or cc of saline or silicone gel.  Going larger than this size means you will need a customized implant, which means additional fees.

But common sense suggests that implants larger than 800cc do no guaranty better results or more beautiful appearance.  In fact, most self-respecting plastic surgeons would likely decline a patient whose aesthetic goals are too extreme that these will push the body’s limits.

While breast implants are reasonably safe, this may not be the case if yours would be too large for your tissue and fat to accommodate.  Imagine that an implant shell needs “enough coverage” to prevent palpable rippling and visible wrinkling, and using extreme sizes can lead to this kind of problems.

And if you are leading an active lifestyle, unreasonably large breast implants will definitely not work for you.

A “reasonable” size should not just depend on what you want to achieve with breast augmentation.  First and foremost, you should also consider certain anatomical features such as chest width, waistline, and natural breast tissue and fat.  Always bear in mind that the less tissue you have, the more ideal it is for you to choose small- to moderate-sized implants.

By considering your anatomical features—including your body frame (e.g., petite, athletic, big-boned)—it would be easier to achieve a more natural appearance.  Take note that the “heavy top look” which is arguably popularized by Pamela Anderson is no longer the in thing; in fact, the star has been rumored to undergo a revision breast augmentation to downsize her implants.

Even Dolly Parton and Denise Richards were reported to have had breast augmentation to downsize their implants and achieve a more natural look.

Even before consulting with a plastic surgeon, you should be 100 percent sure on the bust size you want to achieve; in this way, you will most likely be satisfied after the surgery.  Always bear in mind that a significant number of revisions happened because the patients thought they have gone too big or too small, so making it right the first time is crucial. 

Breast Contour After Augmentation Mammaplasty

When discussing breast implants, the size is not the only issue patients should focus upon.  They should also bear in mind that the shape and profile of the device, in addition to the appearance of their chest and amount of tissue and fat, can have a significant impact on the final result of breast augmentation surgery.

Breast implants come in two shapes: round in which all the sides are symmetric, almost resembling the contour of an M&M candy; and anatomical in which the lower portion has more volume than the upper part, leading to a teardrop appearance.

To date, round breast implants are more popular than the anatomical version not only because they are cheaper but also they are less likely to cause “aesthetic” problems.  In fact, they can rotate inside the breast pocket and the shape of the chest will still not appear distorted.

By contrast, contoured or anatomical breast implants can lead to deformity in case that they rotate inside the pocket.  And because of this risk, they only come in textured surface which aims to prevent gross movement; however, the same design that prevents implant rotation has its own downside including higher risk of rippling, traction wrinkling, and failure.

As mentioned earlier, implant profile—or its projection off the chest wall—also has an impact on the breast contour after the implant surgery. 

Patients should take note that by using the right implant profile, they can avoid having breasts that appear too pointy or “unusually round.”  Fortunately, most board-certified plastic surgeons today can tell which one can provide the most desirable and natural result by simply looking at the patients’ body-frame.

For instance, high profile implants, which offer more projection but come with a smaller base, can result to a pointy appearance if they are used by women with a wide upper body, thereby leading to a very unflattering appearance.  On the other hand, the design provides a natural outcome if used by patients with a narrow frame.

For patients with a broad torso, it has been sacrosanct to use low profile implants, which offer less projection but come with a wider base so they can fill up more space.

Aside from the implant type, the appearance of the breasts and amount of tissue and fat also affect the outcome of breast augmentation surgery. 

Patients with a fair amount of tissue and fat tend to enjoy a more natural result with the use of saline implant, which has a watery consistency.  By contrast, women with limited tissue and fat would likely end up having a dome-shaped breast if this implant type is used.

Fortunately, a dome-shaped breast can be avoided with the use of silicone implants particularly when dealing with patients whose tissue and fat are quite limited.  This is because the implants are filled with a cohesive gel designed to simulate the consistency of the natural glandular tissue.

Also, the breast contour after surgery is affected by the structure of the chest.  For instance, women who have a pigeon chest, which is associated with the protrusion of both the sternum and ribcage, should expect that it would be more difficult for them to achieve a prominent cleavage (both upper and medial cleavage) than patients in the general population.

Saline Breast Implants—Pros and Cons

Saline breast implants are filled with a sterile saltwater, for this reason, a leak will not result to serious health problems although patients will need revision breast augmentation to correct the deflated-looking bust.

Saline implants are not superior to silicone version, and vice versa.  Patients should realize that the most ideal option largely depends on their anatomical features (e.g., amount of breast tissue) and goals and expectations.

Meanwhile, these are the advantages of saline breast implants:

*  Shorter scar.  In the US, only saline implants filled at the time of surgery are available (currently there is no pre-filled saline implant).  Once the shell is inside the breast pocket, plastic surgeons inject this with a sterile saltwater before closing the incisions.

Because an empty shell can fit in a small incision, patients who will use saline implants should not be concerned with visible scars.

* Lower cost.  Saline implants cost less than the silicone version (around $900 to $1300 cheaper).  The difference in price is due to the reason that the cost of production for these implants is lower.

* No risk of silent leak.  In case of rupture, patients will immediately know it right away.  By contrast, women with silicone implants have to undergo regular MRI screening to detect silent leak.

* Slightly lower risk of capsular contracture.  This complication happens when the scar tissue surrounding the breast implants becomes too thick that it squeezes the devices.  Some studies suggest that women with saline implants are at lower risk of having this problem than patients with silicone version.  While the difference is just 1 percent per year, it can be as high as 10 percent after a decade of having the silicone implants.

On the other hand, saline implants have their own disadvantages such as:

* Less favorable cosmetic result.  Because saline implants are filled with only saltwater, women with little amount of breast tissue cannot achieve a natural result.  However, this is usually not a concern of patients with a moderate to significant amount of tissue and fat.

For patients with little breast tissue, silicone implants are the best option.

* Prone to sloshing

Unlike the silicone implants which are notable for simulating the natural “feel” of tissue, the saline version is prone to sloshing because it is only filled with water.  For this reason, some plastic surgeons intentionally overfill the shell to make the implants firmer.

* Natural deflation

One study has suggested that saline implants have a natural deflation rate of 1 percent per year due to evaporation and other factors.  By contrast, silicone implants maintain their for volume for years except in the event of rupture

Preventing Breast Implant Rupture

While there is no guaranty that breast implants will last a lifetime, plastic surgeons have come up with different techniques to at least prolong the devices’ lifespan and lower the risk of implant rupture.

In the event of implant rupture, the only solution is a revision breast augmentation; this procedure may involve replacing the implants with new ones or removing them without any replacement.

Meanwhile, these are some of the basic rules which can help patients prevent or at least lower the risk of implant failure.

* Choosing silicone implants over the saline version

Currently available silicone breast implants are less likely to rupture than saline because they are not prone to sloshing and wrinkling which are known to affect the shell’s stability.  Another advantage is that the silicone gel does not evaporate (unlike the saline) which means the patients can maintain their breast volume unless in the event of rupture.

The latest version of silicone implants—which have a more cohesive silicone gel than the one currently used—is almost immune to implant failure.  However, these breast implants, called the gummy bear implants, are not yet approved in the US although these are already used in Europe and Canada.

* When using salinei mplants

Rippling, which can compromise the shell’s stability, can be prevented in saline implants by slightly overfilling them.  However, this should be carefully done because too much filler can cause abnormal pressure on the device.

On the other hand, underfilling saline implants only has negative results because it can cause creases, leading to weak areas in the shell.

* Avoiding high trauma to the breast

Modern breast implants are very strong although they are still subjected to the effects of physical force.  Impact from car collision, sports injuries, and accidental falls may compromise the shell’s stability or may even lead to rupture.

* Consider the implant placement

Some doctors say that submuscular implant placement (placing the device under the pec muscle) poses a slightly higher chance of shell damage than the subglandular technique (positioning the implants over the muscle).  A good compromise might be the subpectoral placement.

* Use of Keller Funnel technique

In this technique, plastic surgeons place the breastimplants in a cone-shaped device and then squeeze it so the implants are transferred into the breast pockets.  Doctors use less force in this method than if they push the devices using their fingers.

Breast Surgery—Combining Fat Grafting and Breast Implants

Breast reconstruction via implants for cancer patients who had undergone radiation therapy is often not an ideal procedure due to the high risk of complications for the reason that radiation has toxic effects on tissues, which can impede natural healing for many women.

Because breast implants are not ideal for cancer patients who had radiation therapy, tissue-based reconstruction is the only viable treatment in which their own tissue from buttocks, abdomen, or back is used to create a new breast mound.  However, the tradeoff is longer recovery and muscle weakness and scarring in the donor site.

Fortunately, doctors have found ways minimize the radiation-induced complications, making it possible to use breast implants for post-cancer patients who received radiation therapy.  The staged procedure involves injecting a person’s own fats to her breast so the area will receive a “bed of healthy tissue” in the chest wall.

A recent study published in the February issue of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery medical journal has proven the promising advantage of combining fat grafting and implants for breast reconstruction.

The three-year study involved 16 patients who underwent the new breast reconstruction technique after receiving radiation therapy to fight off cancer cells.  Eleven respondents had mastectomy (partial or complete removal of breasts) while five had lumpectomy and other types of breast-conserving surgery.

Breast reconstruction began three to six months after the respondents received radiation therapy.

All patients have received two to three fat grafts to place healthy tissue in the chest wall, allowing it to accommodate the breast implants and to lower the risk of radiation-induced complications.

The collected fats from the donor site must be subjected to a purification method to separate biomaterials such as blood and connective tissue; in this way, the survival rate of the grafted fats will be high.

After the staged breast reconstruction, the results were highly encouraging in terms of aesthetic improvements, the researchers concluded.  Also, patient satisfaction was rated high to very high.

Meanwhile, an average follow-up of 15 months did not show any complications as all patients have experienced good healing in their tissue surrounding the breast implants.

Performing radiation therapy after breast cancer surgery significantly reduces the risk of recurrence, although the downside is that the treatment can affect the body’s healing because of its toxic effects.

While the new study revealed the promising benefits of fat grafting with breast implant for reconstruction surgery, the researchers said more comprehensive surveys and trials with longer follow-up are still needed to confirm their findings.

Breast Implant Size and Things to Consider Before hand

The size of breast implants is measured via cubic centimeter or cc instead of “cup” since every bra manufacturer follows its own standard.  Meanwhile, it is important to note that the volume is not the only thing that affects the final results as there are other contributing factors such as implant profile, shape, and placement.

During the previous years, a significant number of women who asked for breast augmentation wanted larger implants even if it meant having a “heavy” top look.  However, plastic surgeons today see a shifting trend toward smaller sizes to achieve the natural look.

The growing trend can be seen on some Hollywood celebrities who replaced their breast implants with smaller ones.  For instance, Denise Richards and Pamela Anderson have been reported to have undergone revision plastic surgery to downsize their implants.

Another good example is Kate Hudson who has been reported to receive small breast implants in 2010.  And because of the subtle changes in her bust size, no one would even know that she had the procedure if not only for her previous photos and videos showing how flat-chested she was back then.

As a general rule, very large implants will obviously look “fake” in addition to higher risk of complications as the body, especially the back and upper torso, has to carry more extra weight.  For this reason, a good plastic surgeon will make every effort to convince his patient that inappropriate implant sizes can lead to many problems.

The problem with inordinately large implants is that they may lead to premature sagging and tissue thinning as the breasts are forced to carry more weight.  To correct such complications, a revision plastic surgery—which may involve implant replacement or permanent removal of the device—is the only effective solution.

For thin patients, particularly those with limited amounts of glandular fats and tissue, very large implants can significantly predispose them to visible and palpable rippling, or sometimes even traction wrinkling especially if they will receive the textured implants with large size “graininess.”

Another consideration to make is that large breast implants can upset the center of gravity of women, which can affect the way they move.  With this consideration, athletes and patients who live an active lifestyle are generally advised to choose smaller implants to maintain their performance and good posture.

Because of the risk of excessively large bust size, implant manufacturers in the US do not sell silicone breast implants that are over 800cc.

Study Shows the Benefits of Reconstructive Breast Augmentation to Cancer Survivors

When breast augmentation is mentioned, the first thing that comes to mind is a cosmetic procedure to improve one’s figure.  While it is true that a significant number of patients seek this to increase their bust size, the surgery is also a way to reconstruct the breasts of cancer survivors who had mastectomy.

In 2010, approximately 93,000 breast reconstructive surgeries were performed in the country.  Most of the patients were cancer survivors who wanted to regain their normal appearance.

According to the American Cancer Society, female patients who have undergone breast reconstruction via breast implants, tissue-based method, or combination of both procedures, have experienced dramatic improvement in their social and sexual wellbeing after their traumatic experience with cancer and disfiguring surgical treatment.

A recent study, which is conducted by researchers from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and The University of Toronto, examined the wellbeing of post-cancer patients who had DIEP flap breast reconstruction, a procedure in which their own abdominal tissue was used to create new breast mound.

Before and after breast reconstruction, the respondents were required to answer questionnaires that would determine the status of their wellbeing and self-esteem.  According to the findings, majority had experienced significant improvements in terms of their emotional health just three weeks after the reconstructive plastic surgery.

But as with any tissue-based breast reconstruction in which the patients will likely experience muscle weakness in the donor site, most patients had reported weakened abdominal wall three months after surgery.  However, the symptom is usually tolerated well by many.

While muscle weakness is one of the tradeoffs of breast reconstruction via tissue-based technique, plastic surgeons can prevent this by placing surgical mesh or support over the donor site.

Apart from using a person’s own tissue, plastic surgeons also use breast implants, either filled with silicone gel or saline solution.  But in case that there is little tissue left after mastectomy, they will first insert temporary implants that is inflated with saline solution every two weeks; once there is enough room, they remove the tissue expander and replace this with a permanent implant.

The appropriate breast reconstruction technique largely depends on the amount of tissue left—or the lack of it.  And in general, patients who had invasive cancer surgery will likely need tissue-based surgeries.

On the other hand, women who are left with more amounts of glandular tissue and skin after their cancer surgery will often have the opportunity to choose breast implant surgery, which is less invasive and results to less scarring than the tissue-based reconstruction.

French Implant Manufacturer Warned by US 10 Years Before the Scandal Broke

It has been estimated that 300,000 women have the defective breast implants manufactured by the now bankrupt French company Poly Implant Prothese (PIP).  According to reports, the devices are extremely prone to rupture as they lack a protective coating that prevents silicone gel from migrating to other parts of the body.

Fortunately, the defective silicone implants were not approved and sold in the United States.  In fact, the US Food and Drug Administration has warned PIP in 2000—10 years before the scandal broke—about its failure to follow “good manufacturing practices.”

However, reports show that 80 percent of PIP breast implants were exported to other countries including UK, Chile, Germany, Venezuela, Spain, Argentina, Colombia, and Brazil.

According to the FDA warning sent to PIP founder Jean-Claude Mas, the company’s plant in La Seyne-sur-Mer in the south France has 11 deviations from “good manufacturing practices.” 

The organization also warned him about the “adulterated” saline breast implants, and cited his company’s failure to investigate the deflation of its products in addition to failure to report 120 complaints in France and other countries.  Currently, there is global manhunt for the 72-year-old company founder who is a former butcher.

With the FDA warnings, consumer groups in France ask why their authorities did not conduct an investigation on the safety of PIP’s breast implants.

The US is one of the countries that require very strict guidelines when it comes to implants and devices used in cosmetic plastic surgery.  In fact, Mentor and Allergan Natrelle are the only two companies allowed to manufacture and sell breast implants in the country.

To allay the concern of patients in the US who had breast augmentation surgery, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) has released a statement saying that the defective implants did not reach the country.  The organization added that only those who had the procedure outside the US should be concerned with the defective product.

Because of the fiasco, the French government has promised it will pay for the implant removal surgery of women affected by the defective products.  It has been estimated that 30,000 patients in the country had the PIP silicone-filled implants.

Reports show that PIP’s cheap silicone implants were filled with an industrial silicone gel designed for mattress rather than for human.

On the other hand, the British government still insists that there is no need to require all women with PIP’s silicone implants to undergo implant removal surgery although they are advised to immediately consult their doctor to determine if there is a leak.

Teardrop-Shaped or Anatomical Breast Implants

Anatomical breastimplants—also referred to as dimensional, teardrop, and contoured implants—were first used to reconstruct the breasts of post-cancer patients.  But in later years, some plastic surgeons have started using these devices in cosmetic breastaugmentation surgery.

Unlike round implants in which all the sides are symmetrical, anatomicalimplants have more volume at the bottom than on top, leading to a teardrop appearance.  But because of their shape, there is a risk of flipping over, which in turn leads to visible distortion of the breast contour.

To prevent the anatomical implants from flipping over, they always come in textured shell, which can prevent them from rotating.

The anatomical implants are available in different sizes and profiles (outward projection off the chest wall).  However, patients should bear in mind that these implants are only filled with saline or saltwater solution.

Anatomical implants filled with silicone gel are not available in the US because the “gooey” material cannot be molded into a teardrop shape.

However, there is a new type of breast implant called gummy bear implant (available in some European countries and Canada) which uses a gel more cohesive than the currently available silicone implant’s.  And with its form-stable characteristic, anatomical implants can now be filled with silicone.

It is important to know that gummy bear implants are not yet available in the US market, although some patients may have these new devices if their breast augmentation surgery is conducted by a surgeon involved in a nationwide, FDA-approved study.

While anatomical implants are used in cosmetic breastaugmentation, they are not as popular as the round implants because they are more expensive and can expose patients to higher risk of visible and palpable rippling (because they are always available in textured shell), particularly those with a limited amount of fats and tissue in their breasts.

Another consideration is that the anatomical implants can rotate inside the breast pocket, which in turn can disfigure the shape of the bust.  On the other hand, round implants can be subjected to gross movement and they will still not result to distorted appearance because all their sides are symmetrical.

Contrary to popular belief, there is really no significant difference between anatomical and round implants when it comes to the breast contour after surgery.  In fact, round implants will form a teardrop shape if these are held against the chest wall as the gravity works its wonder.

Patient Options in Breast Augmentation Surgery

The primary goal of breastaugmentation is not just about increasing the bust size but also making the result as natural as possible.  Fortunately, this is easier nowadays as breast implants come in different sizes, shapes, shell, filling, and projection, in addition to a wide range of surgical techniques used by plasticsurgeons.

Nowadays, three options in breast implant placement are available for patients: complete submuscular (under the muscle), partial submuscular (partially under the muscle), and subglandular (behind the tissue).  These surgical techniques have their own pros and cons which are carefully explained to women so they can decide for themselves.

The complete submuscular implant placement results to longer recovery and more pain during healing period because the pec muscles are stretched and pushed.  However, the technique provides countless of benefits such as more coverage to reduce the risk of implant wrinkling; more lifting effect; better mammogram reading; and lower risk of capsular contracture, which is a condition resulting to hardening of the scar tissue around the implants.

On the other hand, the subglandular implant placement results to shorter recovery because the pec muscle remains intact.  But since no muscle covers the implant shell, the technique is only ideal for patients with enough glandular tissue, fats, and skin.  Another consideration to make is that an ongoing ptosis (drooping) may be further aggravated because of the lack of strong “support.”

Meanwhile, the partial submuscular combines the benefits of subglandular and complete submuscular implant placements.

Aside from the implant placement, the type of implants can also have a significant impact on the final result.  For instance, women who want to achieve more cleavage are advised to choose round implant rather than the teardrop-shaped version, although the latter is more notable for simulating the natural contour of the breast.

Breast implants are either filled with saline or silicone gel.  For those who want to achieve a more natural “feel” and “look,” and women with a limited glandular tissue, the silicone implant is a better option; however, one downside is that the patients are required to undergo MRI screening every two years to detect any asymptomatic or “silent” leak.

On the other hand, women with saline implants are not required to have a regular MRI screening because a leak is easily manifested by deflated-looking breasts, making it possible to immediately seek revision breast augmentation.

Regardless if saline or siliconeimplants are used, their size should not only be based on one’s goal but also on her body-frame, amount of tissue and skin, and chest width.  It is important to note that a good plastic surgeon will not push the body’s limit by introducing implants that are too large for it.

Breast implants can be inserted via four incision sites: axillary (armpit), TUBA (navel), breast crease, and areola complex.  Patients should remember that the best surgical technique largely depends on their goals, acceptable risk level, and type and size of implants.

The axillary and TUBA incision sites require the use of an endoscope, which is a fiber optic camera attached to a large monitor.  Through this instrument, plastic surgeons can insert an empty saline shell inside the breast pocket and then fill this with a sterile saltwater solution.

But because the axillary and TUBA incisions work farther away from the bust area, there is a greater margin of error.  By contrast, the breast crease and areola incision sites provide surgeons with greater control over the final result of the surgery, making them a more popular choice.

Since there are many surgical options and type of implants available for women, breast augmentation typically involves lengthy consultation between patients and plastic surgeons.  In this way, doctors can also determine if the goals and expectations of a person with the surgery are plausible and achievable.