» Articles » PMID: 19338941

Comparative Double Blind Clinical Study on Round Versus Shaped Cohesive Gel Implants

Overview
Journal Aesthet Surg J
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2009 Apr 3
PMID 19338941
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Highly cohesive round or shaped implants are used today by most plastic surgeons performing breast augmentation outside North America.

Objectives: This study was conducted to (1) compare aesthetic outcomes of round versus shaped implants in breast augmentation by defining the preferences of the general female population and plastic surgeons towards two groups of augmented breasts (implanted with either round or shaped devices); and (2) to determine whether or not plastic surgeons could identify the type of implant used in each patient based on the postoperative appearance.

Methods: The study surveyed 30 breast augmentation patients, 15 with shaped implants and 15 with round devices. Two cohort categories evaluated the postoperative photographs of the patients: the first group comprised 235 female lay respondents and the second group included 11 male plastic surgeons. The lay respondents were asked to score breast beauty and naturalness, and to assess the upper pole. The plastic surgeons were asked similar questions and were additionally asked to try to identify the implant type.

Results: With respect to "breast beauty," both respondent categories scored round and shaped implant patients similarly. With regard to "naturalness," both groups scored round implant patients significantly higher (P < .001). Concerning upper pole assessment, the round implant group was scored higher and better than the shaped implant group (P < .001). The plastic surgeons' correct identification rate was 64% for round implants, and 47% for shaped implants.

Conclusions: We believe that in the hands of an experienced surgeon who takes all soft tissue variables into consideration, the aesthetic result may not be differentiable when using round versus shaped implants in well-selected patients.

Citing Articles

Can a Breast Augmentation Procedure Improve the Appearance of Pectus Excavatum Deformity in Female Patients? A Prospective Study.

Keramidas E, Rodopoulou S, Gavala M Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024; 12(6):e5926.

PMID: 39148660 PMC: 11326465. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000005926.


Anatomical Breast Implant Assessment Using Ultrasound: A Case Series from the International Breast Implant Check Clinic.

Jaeger M, Randquist C, Gahm J Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2023; 11(12):e5469.

PMID: 38111726 PMC: 10727634. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000005469.


Gel Cohesivity and Breast Augmentation: Applications to Clinical Practice.

Edwards M, Gabriel A, Hammer J, Jewell H, Jewell M Aesthet Surg J Open Forum. 2022; 4:ojac088.

PMID: 36569283 PMC: 9778838. DOI: 10.1093/asjof/ojac088.


Intraoperative 3D Comparison of Round and Anatomical Breast Implants: Dispelling a Myth.

Lotter L, Zucal I, Brebant V, Heine N, Hartmann R, Mueller K J Clin Med. 2022; 11(1).

PMID: 35011890 PMC: 8745801. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11010149.


Aesthetic breast surgery: putting in context-a narrative review.

Roy P, Yan Z, Nigam S, Maheshwari K Gland Surg. 2021; 10(9):2832-2846.

PMID: 34733731 PMC: 8514307. DOI: 10.21037/gs-20-892.