I'm planning to have my first BA soon and I would like to have some idea of what implants might work well. Since I am fairly active I prefer the subfascial method using anatomically shaped silicone implants. I am 5'11", 157 lbs. My bra size is 36A. BW is 14cm. From suprasternal notch to nipples is 21.75cm and 27cm between nipples. My goal is NATURAL LOOKING, full breasts at most D. I'd like a smooth transition from chest to top of breast.
January 22, 2017
Answer: Anatomic Implants and Subfascial Placement Unfortunately, you have been reading too much on the internet. My specialty is revisionary breast surgery. I will make a few observations from being in this business for 22 years and over 3,000 breast surgeries. First, "subfascial" placement of an implant is basically a subglandular placement. The fascia is less than a mm in thickness and adds nothing to the strength and covering of the implant. It is a marketing ploy to make subglandular placement seem better than it is. My experience with subglandular placement of implants is that most of the issues occur many years after the placement of the implant. The most common problems are a much higher rate of capsular contracture, wrinkling (even with silicone implants), and a slide down of the implant down the chest wall with time. I have gone away from any subglandular/subfascial placement because I see these issues way too much. I see a lot of figure/fitness competitors, triathletes, and other active women in my practice being in the San Diego area. There are ways to place subpectoral implants and minimize the animation deformity issues. The advantages outweigh the disadvantage by a large margin.As far as "anatomic" or shaped implants, these have fallen out of favor for cosmetic breast surgery in the last few years. I have noticed clinically that I couldn't tell the difference in the look between a round and shaped implant. This observation was confirmed by a recent article in the plastic surgery journal in which experts were shown several post operative breast augmentation surgeries and even the experts couldn't tell round from shaped.Your biggest issue is the 27 cm inter nipple distance. That seems very wide. If that is the case, it definitely needs addressed with a circumareolar repositioning. I'm sorry about the long reply, but it's a rainy day in San Diego and not much to do. Best of luck to you.
Helpful
January 22, 2017
Answer: Anatomic Implants and Subfascial Placement Unfortunately, you have been reading too much on the internet. My specialty is revisionary breast surgery. I will make a few observations from being in this business for 22 years and over 3,000 breast surgeries. First, "subfascial" placement of an implant is basically a subglandular placement. The fascia is less than a mm in thickness and adds nothing to the strength and covering of the implant. It is a marketing ploy to make subglandular placement seem better than it is. My experience with subglandular placement of implants is that most of the issues occur many years after the placement of the implant. The most common problems are a much higher rate of capsular contracture, wrinkling (even with silicone implants), and a slide down of the implant down the chest wall with time. I have gone away from any subglandular/subfascial placement because I see these issues way too much. I see a lot of figure/fitness competitors, triathletes, and other active women in my practice being in the San Diego area. There are ways to place subpectoral implants and minimize the animation deformity issues. The advantages outweigh the disadvantage by a large margin.As far as "anatomic" or shaped implants, these have fallen out of favor for cosmetic breast surgery in the last few years. I have noticed clinically that I couldn't tell the difference in the look between a round and shaped implant. This observation was confirmed by a recent article in the plastic surgery journal in which experts were shown several post operative breast augmentation surgeries and even the experts couldn't tell round from shaped.Your biggest issue is the 27 cm inter nipple distance. That seems very wide. If that is the case, it definitely needs addressed with a circumareolar repositioning. I'm sorry about the long reply, but it's a rainy day in San Diego and not much to do. Best of luck to you.
Helpful
January 22, 2017
Answer: Tall height... Thanks for your question. When I discuss shape breast implants, I always give the patient the option to go with a tall or medium height breast implant. However, it doesn't always fit the patient's goals. When it does meet the goal to restore more upper pole volume (deflated breasts after baby) then these look really great. Whether you can have these in a subfascial depends on the thickness of the of the breast tissue. It should be at least 2 cm of pinch. Otherwise, you may need to go under the muscles. See my photo gallery below of shape breast implant results.
Helpful
January 22, 2017
Answer: Tall height... Thanks for your question. When I discuss shape breast implants, I always give the patient the option to go with a tall or medium height breast implant. However, it doesn't always fit the patient's goals. When it does meet the goal to restore more upper pole volume (deflated breasts after baby) then these look really great. Whether you can have these in a subfascial depends on the thickness of the of the breast tissue. It should be at least 2 cm of pinch. Otherwise, you may need to go under the muscles. See my photo gallery below of shape breast implant results.
Helpful
