An interesting article was just published in the Aesthetic Surgery Journal by some plastic surgeons in London. They studied whether a blinded panel of plastic surgeons could tell the difference in women with round vs. anatomic/teardrop silicone implants and whether the panel could identify which women had which implant shape. The conclusions showed that there was no statistically significant ability for the plastic surgeons on the panel to identify which women had which implant. This goes along with what many plastic surgeons, including myself, have been saying, and that is between the round and the anatomic implant, there is usually not much, if any, difference in the appearance postop. With the anatomic implant, there is also the chance of rotation of the implant with deformity of the breast, and of course, there is the greater expense of the anatomic implant. There is certainly nothing wrong with an anatomic implant, but its value is primarily in breast reconstruction in women after breast cancer rather than in cosmetic breast augmentation.
To quote the authors: "CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference (P > .05) in the general and specific cosmetic points between round and anatomical implants was demonstrated; many on the panel were unable to identify implant shape correctly. Both techniques seem to yield good cosmetic results. Clearly the decision on which implant to use must be made on an individual patient basis because many factors influence overall aesthetic outcome. Anatomical implants should not be assumed to produce a more natural result."
This is the reason that Dr. Wiener chooses to use the round, smooth silicone gel implant.