Implant choice depends on so much more than size alone. A few considerations:
1. Projection vs width:
For an equivalent volume, a high-projecting implant is narrower than a moderate one. While
this projection is often mistakenly thought of as ‘cleavage enhancing’, in fact, for a given
volume, a broader implant will confer a fuller superior pole (traditional cleavage) as well as a
more prominent side cleavage (sideboob). The natural width of the chest wall must also be
factored in, and considered relative to the width of the implant.
2. Gel type:
A more dense ‘cohesive’ gel (or saline fill) is designed to be both less rippling and form stable.
This may also promote a sustainably fuller upper breast, which many, but not all patients are
looking for. A less cohesive gel may move more naturally with both gravity and compression by
the patient’s tissue (especially implants placed behind the muscle) and in turn, give more
natural results in terms of both feel and upper breast fullness.
This is why it is so important to discuss the patient’s objectives and ideal ‘look’ before
choosing both the size and shape of her implants. In my opinion, it is so important that, prior to
breast augmentation surgery, I offer (and prefer) a second consult specifically to choose the
final implant. In support of this philosophy, all consults are with ME, rather than an assistant.
Bring your ‘wish pics’!