Are Anatomical Shaped Implants Worth the Extra Cost?

With regards to implants, there is a wide range of quality
and obviously the higher quality of the implant the more expensive implants
cost. I would encourage patients to make their decision based on achieving the
best possible results and not on the cost of the implants, as an extra $1,000.00
when spread out over hopefully 10-20 year lifespan of the implants ends up
being a fairly small amount. Ultimately, patients should really focus on what
is going to get them the best look with the lowest risk of complications. With
regards to the fact that 3 of the 5 surgeons did not even mention anatomical
implants as an option, this is not very surprising to me. Textured anatomical implants
are the most commonly used implants in Europe and in South America. However, in
the US surgeons are slow to catch up to the advance in technology. I have used
every style implant from alternate companies including textured round, textured
anatomical, smooth round, silicone and saline. In some of my patients, I feel
that the textured anatomical implants, in particular Sientra’s classic
anatomical implant gives the best overall results. In a tall, lean, relatively
flat chested patient, a round implant can create a very unnatural appearance.
Likewise, these implants have a higher risk in these patients for migrating, which can require revision surgery. For
somebody with this description, I would certainly be leaning towards a Sientra
classic anatomical implant, which I think would fit nicely. Patient’s have plenty of photos to look at
on-line and my website has many examples of anatomical implants. In general, I
find the look of a classic anatomical from Sientra has a very similar
appearance to a smooth round moderate plus or a Style 15 implant from Mentor or
Allergan. Ultimately, the choice of what style implant can usually be made with
you and your surgeon. However, I would lean toward surgeons who give you a full
array of options rather than those that give you a limited range of
possibilities.

Anatomical implants have been around for many years. The gummy bear implants have been introduced recently in the U.S. and the anatomical are textured. The surface is textured so that they can adhere in a fixed position, not rotate and become malpositioned. If you are super flat and have very little breast tissue then implants in front of the muscle would be easily palpated and feel fake. Implants are best placed retro-pectoral. In the retro-pectoral position, the profile of the implant is irrelevant since the muscle compresses it and determines the projection. I recommend round silicone gel implants since they look and feel more natural, are more stable, less likely to ripple or have complications needing revision. This will give you a natural look and natural feel, which is important in a very thin woman.

Best Wishes,

Gary Horndeski, M.D.

Many patients even with thin tissue do fine with moderate round implants placed partially behind the muscle (dual-plane) and thus have no issue with malposition or rotation of the implant.The new shaped implants (Sientra, Mentor and Natrelle) are all firmer than standard round silicone implants which may be objectionable to some women. The important thing is to make sure the shaped implants are placed by a surgeon who has experience with both types. They are $1000 more expensive, but are not always necessary. Only a small fraction of women actually need this type of implant, and there are potential risks of implant malposition. A round implant placed partially behind the muscle will naturally form a tear drop shape and will have no risk of malrotation since the implant is symmetrical in all position if it rotates. Good luck...