Does putting an implant under the muscle make it look smaller?

Since the implants are positioned partially beneath the muscle, the surrounding tissue may initially compress that area. As you heal and the tissue gradually expands, the implants should experience less compression, allowing for a more natural feel and appearance.

A difference of 55cc is small and is mildly visible. It would be a good idea to try on both sizes at your doctor’s office to see which you prefer.

When undergoing breast augmentation there are a number of choices which need to be made: saline or silicone? Volume: Larger or smaller? Incision? However, one of the most commonly debated choices is that of implants placement: subglandular/ submammary vs. subpectoral/ submuscular? While many surgeons recommend submuscular placement there are distinct differences to each approach.

Subglandular Augmentation (“overs”):

• Subglandular augmentation means place of the implant underneath the breast tissue but above the pectoralis muscle. Subglandular placement spares the pectoralis muscle which leads to reduced post operative pain/discomfort and no impact on muscle function post augmentation. Recovery is also faster
when compared to subpectoral augmentation.

• Subglandular augmentation can impact mammographic evaluation of the breast. However, as dedicated breast radiography has become more prevalent this has become less of an issue. Fellowship trained radiologists have become familiar with evaluating breasts post augmentation. It is also important to note that implant position does not interfere with visualization of breast tissue via contrast enhanced MRI (the most sensitive and specific study available for breast cancer detection).

• Studies suggest there is an increased risk of capsular contracture when implants are placed in a subglandular space.

• Aesthetically, implants placed superficial to the pectoralis major create a rounded, convex appearing breast profile. This effect is camouflaged, at least initially in larger breasted patients. However, as a woman ages fat atrophies and breast tissue descends. The result is a more noticeable implant specifically in the upper pole. Similarly, patients who have thin coverage superiorly are more likely to be able to perceive the implants and at higher risk of visible rippling.

Subpectoral Augmentation (“unders”):

• Subpectoral augmentation is technically a bit of a misnomer. Traditionally, subpectoral augmentation involves the release of the pectoralis major muscle from its lower attachments. This allows the muscle to “window-shade.” The upper hemisphere of the implant sits underneath the muscle (dual plane). This release contributes much of the discomfort encountered postoperatively by patients.

• Subpectoral implants have a lower rate of capsular contracture.


• Aesthetically, in contrast to submammary implants (which are prominent in the upper pole- especially in thinner patients), the pectoralis muscle both conceals the underlying implant and flattens the upper pole. This flattening effect creates a natural sloping as one proceeds from the upper portion of the implant to the lower portion.

• The most commonly cited drawback to sub-muscular augmentation is the animation deformity associated with contraction of the overlying muscle.

With regards to your specific question, I would not struggle over small volume variations. 55 cc is only slightly more than a shot glass (44 cc) and is unlikely to be a "make or break" decision.

Each approach has both costs and benefits. Patients are unique and so too is each operative plan. A potential augmentation candidate may be better suited for one approach or the other. As always, your board certified plastic surgeon can help guide you in your decision making process.