Breast Implants Before and After

Patient 1 – This 22-year old had a periareolar over the muscle (subfascial) breast augmentation with 345cc smooth round silicone implants. Additionally, we did 50cc of fat grafting to the breasts to enhance her cleavage. Liposuction was performed in her axillary (armpit) folds to emphasize breast shape. Shown pre-op and at her 3 month follow up appointment.

Patient 2 – This 27-year-old woman had 420cc silicone gel implants placed over the muscle (subfascial) with an inframammary approach. Shown pre-op and at her two-month follow-up appointment.

Patient 3 – This is a 33-year-old woman was unhappy with her A cup breasts. She had 355cc gel implants placed over the muscle (subfascial) with a periareolar approach. She did not have much natural tissue coverage above and rather than going under the muscle, she had fat grafting to the upper breast and cleavage area. The result is this natural and beautiful augmentation. Shown pre-op and at her two-month follow up appointment.

Patient 4 – This 31-year-old woman had 275cc silicone gel implants placed over the muscle (subfascial) with a periareolar approach. Shown pre-op and at her two month follow-up appointment.

Patient 5 – This 30-year-old woman had 285cc silicone implants placed over the muscle (subfascial) with a periareolar approach. Additionally, she had fat grafting in the upper rib cage and cleavage area to smooth the transition from chest to the implant. These are her pre-op and two month follow up photos.

Patient 6 – This 42-year-old came to see Dr. Zenn because of breast asymmetry. She had a 265cc silicone implant placed on the left and a 295cc implant on the right. She also had fat grafting of both breasts in the cleavage area. Dr. Zenn placed the implant over the muscle (subfacial) using a periareolar approach. These are her pre-op and two month follow-up photos.

This 31-year-old mother of four had a periareolar over the muscle (subfascial) breast augmentation with 255cc silicone gel implants. Her beautiful results look natural because the implants chosen fit her frame perfectly. Additionally, she had plenty of natural breast tissue to cover the implant so no muscle work was required. This allowed the implants to give more cleavage as they are placed closer together than sub-pectoral (under the muscle) placement would allow. Finally, in darker-skinned patients, periareolar scars are superior to scars under the breast. Shown pre-op and at her two-month follow-up appointment.

Patient 8 – This 57-year-old woman had an inframammary fold approach to an over the muscle (subfascial) augmentation. She had 365cc silicone implants placed on each side. Photos shown are pre-op and at her 2 month follow up appointment.

Patient 9 – This 33-year-old woman with asymmetry had a periareolar approach to an over the muscle (subfascial) augmentation. She has a 445cc silicone implant on the left and a 400cc implant on the right. She also had liposuction of excess fat near her armpits area to improve the overall cosmetic result. These are her 2 month follow-up photos.

Patient 10 – This is a 33-year-old patient who had an inframammary approach to an over the muscle (subfascial) augmentation with fat grafting to her cleavage area. She had 375cc silicone implants placed on each side. Shown pre-op and at her two month follow up appointment.

Patient 11 – 34-year-old woman who is a high-level athlete with A cup breasts. She desired slightly larger and prettier breasts but did not want them to interfere with her abililty to train and perform athletically. Dr. Zenn performed her breast augmentation with periareolar, subfascial placement of 280cc gel implants. Shown is her 4-month result as a B cup, and she is as active as ever. It is not necessary to place implants under the muscle and Dr. Zenn believes that in most cases it is not required.

Patient 12 – This 54-year-old woman wanted to regain her breast fullness and smooth out her stomach so she could comfortably wear a bikini again. She had a high lateral tension abdominoplasty removing 1.5 pounds of tissue and a subfascial, periareolar breast augmentation with 250cc high profile silicone gel implants. This is her 3-month result.

Patient 13 – 38-year-old patient underwent breast augmentation with submuscular placement of 280cc gel implant on the left and 320cc implant on the right via a periareolar approach. Shown 3 months post surgery.

Patient 14 – 40-year-old woman underwent breast augmentation with periareolar, submuscular placement of 275cc gel implants. This is her 3 month result.

Patient 15 – 34-year-old woman underwent breast augmentation with submuscular placement of 225cc gel implants through a periareolar approach. She also had nipple reduction. This is her 3 month result.

Patient 16 – 33-year-old patient underwent breast augmentation with subfascial placement of high profile gel implants, 275cc on the left and 300cc implant on the right all performed through a periareolar approach. This is her 3 month post-op result.

Patient 17 – This 34-year-old woman was never happy with her breast size and droop but did not want to have scars from a breast lift, just a fuller size. She also could not improve her abdominal contour despite doing core exercises. Dr. Zenn performed a periareolar, subfascial breaste augmentation with 325cc MP+ gels giving her a natural appearing augmentation without noticeable scars. This is her 2- month result.

Patient 19 – 28-year-old woman whose breasts were a small C cup with the right larger than the left. Her breasts were beautiful but she wanted to be a larger full C cup to better balance her figure. Dr. Zenn performed her breast augmentation with inframammary, submuscular placement of 200cc implants. Shown 2 months post- surgery, she is better balanced as a full C cup. Her breasts are still beautiful!

Patient 20 – 38-year-old woman with small A cup breasts wanted more of a figure to fill out her bra and look curvier in clothes. Dr. Zenn performed breast augmentation with submuscular placement of 200cc implants via a periareolar approach. Shown is her result after 9 years! She has enjoyed a full C cup and maintained beautiful soft breasts the entire time.

Patient 21 – This 42-year-old woman had beautiful C cup breasts, however, over time she gained weight primarily in her lower body. She came to see Dr. Zenn because she desired larger breasts to better balance her figure. This is a common story. Dr. Zenn performed her breast augmentation with an inframammary, submuscular placement of a 350cc implant on the left and a 385cc implant on the right for best symmetry. Shown at 3 –months post-surgery, more balanced and still beautiful.

Patient 22 – 30-year-old patient with two different shaped A cup breasts. She wanted to be fuller but not too big. These are challenging cases because placement of an implant can exaggerate the difference between the breasts. Dr. Zenn performed her breast augmentation with periareolar, submuscular placement of 315cc implants. Shown 3-months post-surgery – as a B/C cup. Although there are still differences between the breasts, they actually look more similar now. Notice also how well the inferior periareolar scar heals. Hard to even see at 3 months. This is not the case with inframammary scars.

Patient 23 – 39-year-old woman whose A cup breasts were completely different shapes –the left taller, narrower, and lower than the right. A true challenge! Dr. Zenn performed her breast augmentation with periareolar, submuscular placement of 260cc implants. This is her 2-month result, more symmetric and shapely as a B cup.

Patient 24 – 37-year-old woman with A cup breasts with more droop on the left than the right. She desired to be a C cup. Dr. Zenn discussed the possibility of needing a breast lift as well depending on how things looked in the OR with the implants in. Ultimately, Dr. Zenn performed her breast augmentation with periareolar, submuscular placement of 325cc implant on the left and a 345cc implant on the right. Shown is her 6-month result. This balanced her shape and size nicely despite some persistent droop on the left. Her result is natural appearing and beautiful and no breast lift scars were needed.

Patient 25 – This 40-year-old patient underwent breast augmentation with submuscular dual plane placement of 280cc gel implants via a periareolar approach.Shown 3 months post surgery.

Patient 26 – This 43-year-old had a periareolar, biplanar breast augmentation with different size implants (left 275cc HP gel, right 300cc HP gel) to address the size difference. This is her 2-month result.

Patient 27 – 35-year-old patient underwent breast augmentation with periareolar, submuscular placement of 350cc gel implants. This is her 2 1/2 month result.

Patient 28 – 36-year-old woman underwent breast augmentation with submuscular placement of 225cc gel implants via a periareolar approach. This is her result at 2 months.

Patient 29 – This 71-year-old woman had previous breast augmentation and came to Dr. Zenn with firmness and distortion of her breasts that make it uncomfortable and difficult to wear clothes. Through her inframammary scar, she had total removal of her scar tissue in one piece (“en bloc”) and replacement with new 550cc silicone gel implants. These are her before and 2 months after photos. She now has soft breasts with beautiful shape.