Literature DB >> 29709430

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

Patrick P Bletsis1, Lesley R Bouwer2, Klaas H Ultee3, Michel Cromheecke4, Berend van der Lei5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Literature remains inconclusive on the attractiveness and natural aspect of anatomical breast implants, and thus far, studies have failed to demonstrate the visible difference in implants that are in practice compared to those that are round. This study was undertaken to evaluate (1) whether lay and professional participants can distinguish between breasts augmented with either round or anatomical breast implants and (2) their opinion with regard to naturalness and attractiveness of these augmented breasts.
METHODS: Twenty 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 to 400 g. Ptotic or malformed breasts were excluded. Finally, they had to score the most natural, unnatural, attractive, and unattractive breast shapes on a schematic depiction of breast types with varying upper poles.
RESULTS: The 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 as significantly more natural (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, respectively) 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, respectively) versus round implants by both lay participants and surgeons. Participants preferred breasts with a neutral or slightly negative upper pole contour.
CONCLUSION: Participants 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.
Copyright © 2018 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anatomical breast implant; Breast aesthetics; Breast augmentation; Round breast implant; Saline breast implant

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29709430     DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2018.04.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg        ISSN: 1748-6815            Impact factor:   2.740


  2 in total

1.  Use of the Subfascial Plane for Gender-affirming Breast Augmentation: A Case Series.

Authors:  Geetika Mehra; Tal Kaufman-Goldberg; Sagit Meshulam-Derazon; Elizabeth R Boskey; Oren Ganor
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2021-01-21

2.  A Dutch Cross-sectional Population Survey to Explore Satisfaction of Women with their Breasts.

Authors:  Nadia Sadok; Liesbeth Jansen; Martine D de Zoete; Berend van der Lei; Paul M N Werker; Geertruida H de Bock
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2021-12-23
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.