Reviews you can trust, from real people like you.      
How it works
  • Our highly-trained Review Moderation team evaluates all reviews before they're published to ensure they're written by people like you and not a member of a doctor's office.
  • This multi-step process takes up to 24 hours from review submission to publication.
  • Doctors can't pay to have reviews removed or hidden.
  • Reviews are only removed at the reviewer's request or if they violate our Terms of Service.

If you have questions or believe we should re-evaluate a published review, let us know.

Sort by:
*Treatment results may vary

Using wish photos

My surgeon discouraged the use of wish photos and I felt I was unable to communicate my preferences without them. If I look back at photos of women of similar size with similar "before" boobs who got the same size/profile implants, I think it is a fair guess. I will post a couple here.

How my doc came up with his recommendation

So I was killing time the other day after responding to LL2's comment when I came across a reference to the "high five" method for surgeons to use to determine what implant volume and placement to recommend to their patients. I was curious so I googled it. Along with some publications from medical literature, I ran across the website of the guy who came up with it. To my surprise, I recognized the form for using this method a the one my surgeon used. I recall the whacky exam it suggests (hard to forget having your boobs measured with calipers). My surgeon did not explain all the pinching and pulling and measuring. I always thought his suggestion of 330cc sounded kind of arbitrary. I am strangely reassured that there is method behind what looks like madness. The website did some explaining of why and how. Impressive is the fact that the results are studied. Less from an aesthetic perspective and more from looking at long term tissue damage and reoperation rates. Anyway, I will post the form here in case anyone is interested. I should add, I am glad I did not go with 330, that would have been too big for my taste... But apparently not for my tissues.

Bras a year after revision

I believe they have settled as much as they are going to. I'm no expert in breasts, but I can tell my shape is different than natural breasts by the way bras fit. I ended up 32C in most contour or underwire bras. They are really close to 34B except 32C are slightly more narrow with slightly more projection. Sometimes the band on a 32 is just too tight so I go with 34. That is where the fake becomes evident. The B fits my lower pole perfectly but is slightly tight in the upper pole. The 34C fits the upper pole but has big wrinkles underneath. I do feel that I have more upper pole than is natural for my size. It looks okay, it just makes bra shopping challenging. Despite extensive trial and error, I never did find a strapless bra that looks, feels and fits nicely. They all are too tight over the tops of my breasts. Then I discovered I can comfortably go braless! A couple of nipple stickers and I was good to go. I find I rarely wear structured bras now, and I almost never wear an underwire. I use a tight bralet that offers a little support, controls the nipples and is comfy enough to sleep in! (I do sleep in them, I like to keep it G rated in case I have to get up with one of my kids in the night). I only wear contour bras if I am wearing a loose flowy top and don't want my boobs to disappear. In fitted t shirts I find that the contour bras make me look like I am hiding a couple of torpedoes! For t shirts I pull out an unpadded bralette. Working out is great though in athletic bras I go with 34B because 32 is just too tight. I avoid 34C because when I am bouncing around, I want to be sure that lower pole is supported. Before implants, I used those hot padded athletic bras. Now I look good in the cooler unpadded type. So I guess one of the more surprising benefits of having implants is being comfortable and looking feminine at the same time.