Reply: Modern primary breast augmentation: best recommendations for best results

This article compares 3 different methods how to identify the new IMF for a certain breast implant volumes / dimensions, including our own method that is called "The Pythagorean Theorem Method"

Letter:: Intraoperative Comparison of Anatomical versus Round Implants in Breast Augmentation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

</p

Evaluation of anatomical and round breast implant aesthetics and preferences in Dutch young lay and plastic surgeon cohort

Background: Literature remains inconclusive on the attractiveness and natural aspect of anatomical breast implants, and thus far, studies have failed to demonstrate the visible difference in implants that are in practice compared to those that are round. This study was undertaken to evaluate (1) whether lay and professional participants can distinguish between breasts augmented with either round or anatomical breast implants and (2) their opinion with regard to naturalness and attractiveness of these augmented breasts. Methods: Twenty breast augmentations (10 anatomical and 10 round implants), each depicted by two postoperative pictures, were scored by 100 lay participants and 15 plastic surgeons. Implant volume ranged from 275 to 400g. Ptotic or malformed breasts were excluded. Finally, they had to score the most natural, unnatural, attractive, and unattractive breast shapes on a schematic depiction of breast types with varying upper poles. Results: The rate of correct implant identifications was 74.0% (1480/2000 observations, p <0.001) in the lay and 67.3% (202/300 observations, p <0.001) in the surgeon cohort. Breasts with anatomical implants were rated as significantly more natural (3.3 +/- 1.0 vs. 2.6 +/- 1.0, p Conclusion: Participants were able to distinguish between the results achieved with either anatomical or round textured Allergan breast implants and found augmented breasts with the anatomical implants more natural and attractive. (C) 2018 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Vertical scar versus the inverted-T scar reduction mammaplasty: A 10-year follow-up

A retrospective study was undertaken to evaluate whether the initial outcome of two types of reduction mammaplasty techniques (vertical scar reduction mammaplasty vs. the inverted-T scar reduction mammaplasty) remains stable in the long term: Sixty-nine patients who had undergone breast reduction surgery in the period 1997-2000 at the Department of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery at the Medical Center of Leeuwarden were willing and able to participate in this study. A structured questionnaire was used to assess the degree of patient satisfaction. For subjective evaluation, the Strasser Grading System on photographs at the 3 months after surgery and after long-term follow-up (10 years) was used. The median general appreciation mark for the entire surgical procedure given by patients was 8 (1-10) on a scale from 1 to 10. Forty-six of the 69 patients could be scored according to Strasser: at 3 months in 17 patients (37%) the result was 'good', in 21 patients (46%) 'mediocre' and in eight patients (17%) 'poor'. After 10 years, in 37 of the patients (80%) the result was 'good', in six patients (13%) 'mediocre' and in three patients (7%) 'poor'. At 3 months, there was a higher incidence of bottoming out in the vertical scar group (one on two patients) as compared to the inverted-T scar group (one on 10 patients); however, at the 10-years follow-up bottoming out was 50% in the inverted-T scar group and 20% in the vertical scar group. Despite bottoming out, in both the vertical scar reduction mammaplasty technique and the inverted-T scar reduction mammaplasty technique, high patient satisfaction rates are achieved that remains for years. (C) 2012 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Determining breast volume preference among patients, plastic surgeons, and laypeople: Is there a perfect breast size?

Background: The female breast comes in many different shapes and sizes. The literature remains inconclusive on the ideal breast size. This study aims to investigate and compare breast size preferences among three cohorts (patients, plastic surgeons, and laypeople) to provide a better understanding of Western European ideals. Methods: Patients, plastic surgeons, and laypeople were interviewed using a survey containing three-dimensional simulations of nine females, each depicted using five simulations with increasing breast size (1 = natural breast without breast implants, 2 = moderate, 3 = moderate plus, 4 = high, and 5 = ultra-high). Linear regression models were performed to define statistically significant associations between preferred breast size and predictor variables. Results: In total, 28 patients, 45 plastic surgeons, and 100 laypeople (50 males and 50 females) participated in this study. On average, patients (3.5 ± 0.7) preferred larger breast sizes compared to surgeons (3.0 ± 0.7) and laypeople (3.1 ± 0.8). The difference between patients and surgeons was statistically significant. Overall, males preferred larger breast sizes than women. Patients of older age and with a higher BMI preferred larger breast sizes, while higher educational level was significantly associated with smaller breast size preference. Female plastic surgeons would undergo breast augmentation, while male plastic surgeons and female lay participants seem more skeptical. Conclusions: Significant preferential differences exist between patients and surgeons. It is important for professionals to be aware of societal ideals and preferential differences to adequately consult patients and achieve more satisfactory results