In recent study published in Plastic and Reconstuctive Surgery, plastic surgeons and plastic surgery nurses had only a 50/50 chance of determining whether patients had teardrop implants (anatomic or shaped implants) vs round implants based on post operative photos.
For many years plastic surgeons and implant companies have debated whether there was a noticeable difference between anatomic (shaped or teardrop) implants versus round implants. The prevailing wisdom has always been that teardrop implants have a noticeable appearance that is different from standard round implants.
Teardrop implants were felt to have a more natural appearance than round, however the use of teardrop implants does carry the risk complications especially if they rotate after placement, requiring correction. Teardrop implants are also more expensive than round implants.
A long-standing argument has always been that when patients are standing, some of the silicone in round implants shifts to the bottom, giving the implant a “pseudo-teardrop” shape.
For the study 30 plastic surgeons and nurses were asked to review the preoperative and postoperative photos of 30 patients who had undergone cosmetic breast augmentation using either round or cohesive gel implants in the 200cc to 340cc range. The reviewer was asked to determine if the patient had either teardrop implants or round implants. On average, the observers were only correct about 50% of the time in their determination.
The study did focus primarily on cohesive gel “gummy bear” implants in patients undergoing cosmetic breast augmentation and did not include reconstructive patients. While there have been other studies of a similar nature, particularly in regard to saline implants, this is the first to focus on cohesive gel implants.
Overall, the study does call into question both the prevailing theory of anatomic vs round implants and the justification of using teardrop implants over round implants.
More information can also be found at Plastic Surgery Practice
