Radiant Life® Magazine is The Aesthetic Wellness Magazine, and is dedicated to innovations in cosmetic plastic surgery. The current issue of Radiant Life® features an article by Lindsay Haakenson on the latest innovations in Breast Augmentation entitled Breast Surgery 2.0.
Radiant Life Magazine approached me with a short deadline and the need for an example of modern breast augmentation. My staff contacted a few of our many satisfied patients. Jennifer was the first to respond, and she immediately agreed to both an interview with Radiant Life Magazine and the use of her pictures, and for that she gets my sincere thanks. This is a true testimonial* to how worthwhile breast augmentation surgery has been for her. Thanks goes out to my other happy patients who also graciously responded, and to Lindsay Haakenson for including me.
Jennifer first came into the office for a consultation after noticing her breast volume had decreased after pregnancy. She was interested in restoring what mother nature had both given and then taken away. She expressed a desire to maintain proportions with her body, and wanted a natural look that would be attractive, without being distracting.
The excerpt to the right is from the Breast Surgery 2.0. At the top are her breast augmentation before and after pictures. Before submuscular (subpectoral) breast augmentation, her breasts where asymmetrical, small, had a relatively low set nipple and a constricted base. The distance between the nipple and the inframammary fold was short, and the remaining breast tissue was firm. She had a mild form of what is sometimes referred to as a tubular breast.
The simplest way to correct a tubular breast is with a subglandular breast augmentation. Often a periareolar mastopexy is performed to lift and reshape a protruding nipple/areolar complex at the same time. Okay, that may not sound so simple, and in Jennifer’s case, the easiest way was not necessarily the best way.
Every patient requires careful thought and consideration. In Jennifer’s case, the tubular deformity was mild, and a periareolar breast lift was not needed. The lack of breast tissue higher on the chest meant that the upper pole of the implant was more likely to be seen. A saline implant was placed behind the muscle to help soften the upper pole of the implant, and to give a more teardrop shape. A periareolar incision was used, and this, as is usual, healed very well.
For a more pronounced tubular breast deformity, this approach may not work. Unlike the approach using a periareolar lift, it will not correct a bulging areola that is often seen in concert with the narrow constricted breast base. If you are considering breast augmentation, it is important to seek a qualified and experienced, board certified plastic surgeon, so that the safest and most predictable plan can be constructed.
I want to thank Jennifer for volunteering to share her results with you. The best part of my job is helping my patients. I am thrilled that Jennifer is happy with the results of her breast augmentation.
* As per the latest American Society of Plastic Surgeons Code of Ethics this is a true testimonial. I have not reimbursed my patient in any way for her kind words, and I have not paid Radiant Life Magazine to be included in this article. To read the entire Radiant Life Magazine article, click here. You need to be able to view pdf files in order to display the contents properly. To download the latest version of Adobe Reader for free click here.Previous Post Next Post