Birmingham Breast Implants doctors

For where you started (A cup) considering your height and weight,  400 ccs seems a very appropriate choice for your implant volume, given your desire for a full C cup.  Round implants will give a more "artiifcial" look in general.  For 5 weeks I think your result is good and if given time, when measured will likely achieve your cup size goals.  Keep in mind if you wear a Victoria Secret bra count on a full cup size difference as their bras run smaller.  chris@heddenmd.com

I'll disagree with my colleagues somewhat and point out that it's a matter of tradeoffs. It is the general thought by most plastic surgeons world wide that subfascial or subglandular implants offer a more natural result with less morbidity then submuscular implants.  When you listen to the most experienced surgeons in the world who have done this operation for 30-40 years and have literally "seen it all, twice" , they by and large describe a personal shift toward smooth, round subglandular or subfascial silicone devices as it is the most forgiving operation with the least morbidity.

Outside the USA, it's much,much more common to place implants over the muscle. The caveats to that are 1) you need to go smaller with the implant & 2) you've got to have enough tissue to camouflage the upper implant. The issue of hardening of the implants is a little more complex then submuscuar or saline have less capsular contracture with more recent long term follow up of patients with implants. It's more accurate to point out that early hardening  is more common but there is little difference between groups as you get further out. Very thin women with little tissue will require the coverage of the muscle and do well over time.  Women with more tissue frequently get the implant staying high with the tissue sliding off the muscle within a few years (the "snoopy deformity") when placed totally or partially beghind the pectoralis

If that photo attached to the thread is your preoperative picture, I'd suggest you'd be an excellent candidate for subfascial placement

As someone who gets referred a lot of revision breast surgery, I'm going to disagree slightly with my colleagues and suggest that revision thru the periareolar incision with gel devices can be significantly more difficult a procedure, particularly with larger devices.  Unless the patient is getting some kind of associated periareolar mastopexy, the precision of the IMF approach (particularly for retropectoral implants) is going to be superior for this and produce less potential step off by having to go thru and replicate the breast tissue disrupted by a periareolar disection.  I've seen a number of wierd contour problems on some of these redo's  from periareolar implants where the breast tissue closure creates an almost uncorrectable ripple or step off  that's made more me more circumspect in accepting a small second scar on the IMF.