Barajas-Puga JÁ, Soto-Verdugo LA, González-Godínez C, Servín-Uribe SD, García-Bañuelos DL, Moreno-Rubio MA, Martínez-Covarrubias EG, Sánchez-Alba C, Servín-Chaidez CD

Language: Spanish
References: 22
Page: 113-117
PDF size: 497.88 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Since the introduction of breast implants, the selection of implant size for mammoplasty has been a challenging topic for patients and surgeons. Over time, the perspective on the female breast has changed, being influenced by the use of media and social networks, modifying preferences. The selection of implant size is a complex mixture of the patient's requests as well as the surgeon's measurements, experience, and evaluation. We carried out a retrospective study to analyze the selection of implant size after primary augmentation, between September 2020 and July 2024 in Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico. Data were analyzed based on the texture, volume, and position of the implants. The patients' wishes regarding the expected cup size were discussed. A total of 800 patients aged between 18 and 62 years (average 32 years) underwent bilateral breast augmentation, with implant volume between 175 and 700 mL (304 patients, 38%). The volume of implants used during the first half of the study was greater than those used in the second half. Patients now prefer and request a smaller cup size than in the past. We concluded that the selection of implant volume can be based on various methods according to each surgeon's experience; however, breast width and tissue characteristics remain the gold standard. Patients chose larger volumes in the 18-29 and 30-45 age groups, with a trend toward smaller volumes in patients over 45 years old. This may be influenced by geolocation and medical tourism in our region, which may vary compared to the rest of the country.

REFERENCES

1. Spear SL, Parikh PM, Goldstein JA. History of breast implants and the food and drug administration. Clin Plast Surg 2009; 36 (1): 15-21.

2. Cronin TD, Gerow FJ. Augmentation mammoplasty: a new "natural feel" prosthesis October 13-18, 1963. Transactions of the Third International Congress of Plastic Surgery. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica Foundation; 1963, pp. 41-49.

3. Braley SA. The use of silicones in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 1973; 50: 280-288.

4. Peters W, Smith D, Fornasier V et al. An outcome analysis of 100 women after explantation of silicone gel breast implants. Ann Plast Surg. 1997; 39: 9-19.

5. Maxwell GP, Baker MR. Augmentation mammaplasty: general considerations. 2nd ed. In: Spear SL, editor. Surgery of the Breast: Principles and Art. Vol. 1 Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006, pp. 1237.

6. Khan UD. Implant size selection on the basis of period, parity, and age: a 22-year retrospective analysis of 2,591 primary augmentation mammoplasties. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2023; 11 (6): e5042.

7. Basile FV, Oliveira TS. Using machine learning to select breast implant volume. Plast Reconstr Surg 2024; 154 (3): 470e-477e.

8. Brown T. Observations concerning the match between breast implant dimensions, breast morphometry, and a patient-reported outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2021; 9 (1): e3370.

9. Fanning JE, Okamoto LA, Levine EC, McGee SA, Janis JE. Content and readability of online recommendations for breast implant size selection. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2023; 11 (1): e4787.

10. Adams WP, Mckee D. Matching the implant to the breast: a systematic review of implant size selection systems for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138 (5): 987-994.

11. Wallner C, Dahlmann V, Montemurro P et al. The search for the ideal female breast: a nationally representative united-states-census study. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2022; 46 (4): 1567-1574.

12. Adams WP. The process of breast augmentation: four sequential steps for optimizing outcomes for patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 122: 1892-1900.

13. Baker JL. Choosing breast implant size: a matter of aesthetics. Aesthet Surg J 2004; 24: 565-566.

14. Magnusson MR, Connell T, Miroshnik M et al. Breast implant selection: consensus recommendations using a modified Delphi method. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019; 7: e2237.

15. Tebbett JB. Bra stuffing for implant sizing? Satisfaction? Who, when, and compared to what? Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127: 1001-1002.

16. Hidalgo DA. Reply: bra stuffing for implant sizing? Satisfaction? Who, when, and compared to what? Plast Reconstr Surg 20111002; 127: 1003.

17. Khan UD. Preoperative planning and breast implant selection for volume difference management in asymmetrical breasts. Plast Aesthet Res 2017; 4: 108-115.

18. Khan UD. Review of implant sizes in 164 consecutive asymmetrical augmentation mammoplasties. Eur J Plast Surg 2014; 37: 273-280.

19. Hammond D, Kim K, Bageris M, et al. Use of three-dimensional imaging to assess the effectiveness of volume as a critical variable in breast implant selection. Plast Reconstr Surg 2022; 149: 70-79.

20. Hidalgo DA, Spector JA. Preoperative sizing in breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125: 1781-1787.

21. Khan UD. Breast and chest asymmetries: classification and relative distribution of common asymmetries in patients requesting augmentation mammoplasty. Eur J Plast Surg 2011; 34: 375-385.

22. Mallucci P, Branford OA. esign for Natural Breast Augmentation: The ICE Principle. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016;137(6):1728-1737. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002230.