Skip to main content
Log in

Round Gel Breast Implants or Anatomic Gel Breast Implants: Which is the Best Choice?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Since their introduction in 1993, anatomic implants have been popularized by numerous surgeons, but very little literature compares the precise indications, advantages, and disadvantages between round implants and anatomic implants.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed for all the patients who underwent breast implantation by the main author over a 15-year period. The number of implanted patients, the shape of the implants placed, the approach routes, and the placement plane were determined as well as the relationship between the shape of the implant and the approach route. The aesthetic results obtained were analyzed in detail based on the shape of the implant used.

Results

Over a 15-year period, 932 patients underwent surgery for breast implants. During the first 6 years, only round implants were used, and during the last 9 years, both anatomic and round implants were used. A total of 787 pairs of round implants and 145 pairs of anatomic implants were placed. The indications based on the postoperative aesthetic analysis suggest the use of implants according to their shape.

Conclusions

The use of anatomic implants is suggested for patients with significant differences in chest height and width measurements, for cases of significant mammary asymmetry, for patients with a small breast volume or a prominent thorax, and for breasts with a significant deficit of inferior mammary volume or significant shortening of the breast. The authors recommend round implants for patients with a superior pole deficit or moderate breast pseudoptosis, for patients who have a breast that will cover the implant, and for patients who present with a small asymmetry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figs. 1–4
Figs. 5–6
Figs. 7–8
Figs. 9–10
Figs. 11–12
Figs. 13–14
Figs. 15–16
Figs. 17–18
Figs. 19–20

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baeke JL (2002) Breast deformity caused by anatomical or teardrop implant rotation. Plast Reconstr Surg 109:2555–2564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Baxter RA (2004) Indications and practical applications for high-profile saline breast implants. Aesth Surg J 24:24–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Friedman T, Davidovitch N, Scheflan M (2006) Comparative double-blind clinical study on round versus shaped cohesive gel implants. Aesth Surg J 26:530–536

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gampper TJ, Khoury H, Gottlieb W, Morgan RF (2007) Silicone gel implants in breast augmentation and reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 59:581–590

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Glicenstein J (2005) History of augmentation mammaplasty. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 50:337–349

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Graf RM, Bernardes A, Rippel R, Araujo LR, Damasio RC, Auersvald A (2003) Subfascial breast implant: a new procedure. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:904–908

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hamas R (1999) The postoperative shape of round and teardrop saline-filled breast implants. Aesth Surg J 19:369–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hidalgo DA (2000) Breast augmentation: choosing the optimal incision, implant, and pocket plane. Plast Reconstr Surg 105:2202–2216

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hsia HC, Thomson JG (2003) Differences in breast shape preferences between plastic surgeons and patients seeking breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 112:312–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Niechajev I (2001) Mammary augmentation by cohesive silicone gel implants with anatomic shape: technical considerations. Aesth Plast Surg 25:397–403

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Niechajev I, Jurell G, Lohjelm L (2007) Prospective study comparing two brands of cohesive gel breast implants with anatomic shape: 5-year follow-up evaluation. Aesth Plast Surg 31:697–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nipshagen MD, Beekman WH, Esmé DL, de Becker J (2007) Anatomically shaped breast prosthesis in vivo: a change of dimension? Aesth Plast Surg 31:540–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sadove R (2003) Cohesive gel naturally shaped breast implants. Aesth Surg J 23:63–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Spear SL, Bulan EJ, Venturi ML (2006) Breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(7 Suppl):188S–196S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Tebbetts JB (1993) McGhan’s biodimensional augmentation system cohesive gel mammary implants. Instructional Video, 55’, McGhan Medical Corporation, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

  16. Tebbetts JB (1998) Use of anatomical breast implants: 10 essentials. Aesth Surg J 18:77–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tebbetts JB (2001) The greatest myths in breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:1895–1903

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Van Zele D, Heymans O (2004) Breast implants: a review. Acta Chir Belg 104:158–165

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lázaro Cárdenas-Camarena.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cárdenas-Camarena, L., Encinas-Brambila, J. Round Gel Breast Implants or Anatomic Gel Breast Implants: Which is the Best Choice?. Aesth Plast Surg 33, 743–751 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-009-9370-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-009-9370-8

Keywords

Navigation