Your results demonstrate the 'waterfall deformity' that is often seen after an augmentation/mastopexy in which the implants have been placed under the muscle. The muscle holds up the implant, but the breast sags below. This sets the stage for numerous revisions of the lift, and is the main reason for the great number of poor results with this procedure.
We are all well acquainted with the advantages of retropectoral (under the muscle) placement of implants. In the US, in particular, surgeons have been forced to go under the muscle because they have been largely restricted to saline devices.
However, I firmly believe that if you want the implant to stay together with the breast over time, you need to put them together in the operating room. For this reason I nearly always place a tear-drop shaped cohesive silicone gel implant over the muscle when I combine this with a breast lift. It is dramatically easier to get a good result initially, and the result ages well in that the breast and implant stay together over time.
Some will say that the prepectoral augmentation might endanger the circulation to the areola and nipple. I will not do this operation in smokers, and have not seen any circulation problems in at least 75 procedures.
I disagree categorically with those who say this operation must routinely be done in two stages. For goodness' sake if we can (or at least could!) put a man on the moon, we can do breast augmentation/mastopexy in one stage.