Bletsis Patrick P, Bouwer Lesley R, Ultee Klaas H, Cromheecke Michel, van der Lei Berend
Department of Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Postbox 30001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.
Department of Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Postbox 30001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands; Department of Plastic Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Postbus 888, 8901 BR Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018 Aug;71(8):1116-1122. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2018.04.010. Epub 2018 Apr 16.
BACKGROUND: Literature remains inconclusive on the attractiveness and natural aspect of anatomical breast implants, and thus far, studies have failed to demonstrate the visible difference in implants that are in practice compared to those that are round. This study was undertaken to evaluate (1) whether lay and professional participants can distinguish between breasts augmented with either round or anatomical breast implants and (2) their opinion with regard to naturalness and attractiveness of these augmented breasts. METHODS: Twenty breast augmentations (10 anatomical and 10 round implants), each depicted by two postoperative pictures, were scored by 100 lay participants and 15 plastic surgeons. Implant volume ranged from 275 to 400 g. Ptotic or malformed breasts were excluded. Finally, they had to score the most natural, unnatural, attractive, and unattractive breast shapes on a schematic depiction of breast types with varying upper poles. RESULTS: The rate of correct implant identifications was 74.0% (1480/2000 observations, p < 0.001) in the lay and 67.3% (202/300 observations, p < 0.001) in the surgeon cohort. Breasts with anatomical implants were rated as significantly more natural (3.3 ± 1.0 vs. 2.6 ± 1.0, p < 0.001 and 3.3 ± 1.0 vs. 2.2 ± 0.9, p < 0.001, respectively) and more attractive (3.1 ± 1.0 vs. 2.6 ± 1.0, p < 0.001 and 3.6 ± 0.9 vs. 2.7 ± 0.9, p < 0.001, respectively) versus round implants by both lay participants and surgeons. Participants preferred breasts with a neutral or slightly negative upper pole contour. CONCLUSION: Participants were able to distinguish between the results achieved with either anatomical or round textured Allergan breast implants and found augmented breasts with the anatomical implants more natural and attractive.
背景:关于解剖型乳房植入物的吸引力和自然外观,文献尚无定论,迄今为止,研究未能证明实际使用中的植入物与圆形植入物之间存在明显差异。本研究旨在评估:(1)普通参与者和专业参与者能否区分植入圆形或解剖型乳房植入物的乳房;(2)他们对这些隆乳的自然度和吸引力的看法。 方法:100名普通参与者和15名整形外科医生对20例隆乳手术(10例使用解剖型植入物,10例使用圆形植入物)进行评分,每个病例由两张术后照片呈现。植入物体积范围为275至400克。排除乳房下垂或畸形的病例。最后,他们必须在一张具有不同上极的乳房类型示意图上,对最自然、最不自然、最有吸引力和最没有吸引力的乳房形状进行评分。 结果:普通参与者组正确识别植入物的比例为74.0%(1480/2000次观察,p<0.001),外科医生组为67.3%(202/300次观察,p<0.001)。无论是普通参与者还是外科医生,植入解剖型植入物的乳房在自然度(分别为3.3±1.0对2.6±1.0,p<0.001和3.3±1.0对2.2±0.9,p<0.001)和吸引力(分别为3.1±1.0对2.6±1.0,p<0.001和3.6±0.9对2.7±0.9,p<0.001)方面的评分均显著高于圆形植入物。参与者更喜欢上极轮廓呈中性或略呈负性的乳房。 结论:参与者能够区分使用解剖型或圆形纹理的艾尔建乳房植入物所获得的效果,并发现植入解剖型植入物的隆乳更自然、更有吸引力。
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018-8
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018-10
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011-10-10
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2025-6-2
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2025-4-14
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2025-2
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2023-9-25
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021-12-23
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021-1-21