Vancouver Breast Implants doctors

What you needed was some advice and insistence that the decision to use such larger implants was a bad idea. Unfortunately, you and your surgeon made a decision together that used flawed logic. Like many other things in life, you can not always have what you want.

Plastic Surgeons have a responsibility to educate you about the consequences of excessively large implants and tell you to not have surgery like this. However, you have a responsibility to listen to the advice and to be realisitic. How will larger implants not result in more gravitational changes and stretching of your tissues?

Dr. Mosher 

You are somewhat at a disadvantage because US surgeons have had limited choices of implants on which to base their opinions. Your best choice out of the implants that are available in the US for augmentation outside of a study setting,  is likely a  smooth round cohesive silicone gel implant from either Allergan or Mentor. To limit the excessive fullness to the upper chest and cleavage, choose a Plastic Surgeon is experienced and who can recommend an implant size and profile that will achieve your goals.  A smaller sized implant placed into a partially sub-pectoral location should work nicely.

A little more background. Most US Plastic Surgeons have no experience with highly cohesive silicone implants -round or anatomical/teardrop shaped. For reconstructive surgery or for those surgeons participating in a clinical trial, they may have access to more highly cohesive gel implants with an anatomical shape. All round silicone gel implants currently available do have cohesive gel filler but the gel is softer than a gummy bear and therefore not comparable to those available in Canada, Europe and Asia. The most commonly used implants in the US: round, smooth  cohesive silicone gel implants work well but have a revisional surgery rate of about 20% at 3 years. Various strategies are employed by experienced Plastic Surgeons to reduce their own rate of revision but these implants still have significant rupture, ripple and contracture rates that you should know about. In Canada, (not just in Europe) we have had access to anatomical shaped highly cohesive gel implants for more than 10 years and recently have access to highly cohsive gel round implants as well. In comparison to the implants that are currently available in the US, there is a lot of world literature to show lower revisional surgery rates. The rotatation risk with an anatomical shaped implant is real but is about 1% in experienced providers. Even with this unique risk, the re-operation rate has been shown to be lower than a smooth round and less cohesive gel implant like you have available. With all these choices available, no single type of implant the best for all patients. 

Here is the good news for you: if you choose a smaller, smooth, round silicone gel implant placed into a sub-pectoral location - your risk of problems is lower than the published rates of 20% @ 3 years. Furthermore, with your lean physique your satisfaction will likely be higher than with a similar sized round, saline filled device.

The chest can not "swallow" anything. If the ribcage is diseased and damaged (radiation treatments and cancer surgery) and if the implant was surrounded by scar encapulation and if it had been in place for a long while the underlying bone can slowly be resorbed making them weak enough to collapse inward.  That is a lot of "ifs" that do not apply to a healthy woman considering elective breast augmentation. Once again the headlines did their job of getting your attention but also created unnecessary and sensational messaging.

Plastic Surgeons get strange questions often because of this type of "journalism" but this is about as strange and off base as it gets.

Dr. Mosher