Women's desire to have aesthetically pleasing breasts and the role of plastic surgery in achieving these goals are widely accepted. However, a common misconception in this field is the idea that achieving a "more beautiful shape" often requires the use of implants, even if the existing breast volume is sufficient. This common belief can sometimes cause patients to resort to unnecessary surgical interventions or ignore the potential of their own natural tissues.
The basic thesis of this blog post is as follows: The basic and primary purpose of breast implants is to add volume to the breast. If a woman has sufficient breast tissue, using implants by sacrificing or secondarying existing healthy tissue just for the sake of changing the shape is often a wrong approach that can lead to unnecessary and unnatural results. Surgical philosophy should prioritize natural results, protect the patient's own tissues, and prefer the least invasive but effective methods possible. The aim should be to enhance natural beauty, not change it, whenever possible.
One of the reasons underlying this misconception is that implants are perceived as a universal solution for all kinds of problems in breast aesthetics. Their frequent coverage in the media and popular culture may lead to breast implants being the first thing that comes to mind when "breast aesthetics" is mentioned. This may cause patients to request implants without distinguishing between specific problems (lack of volume, sagging, or deformity). The critical role of the surgeon at this point is to inform the patient correctly and clearly demonstrate the difference between the specific areas of use of implants and other techniques. The phrase "wrong approach" indicates not only a technical error or a suboptimal aesthetic result, but also an ethical or philosophical error in the surgical decision-making process. If the existing tissue has the potential to achieve the desired result with other methods, choosing a foreign body (implant) over the person's natural tissue should be considered a less robust approach in terms of patient well-being and tissue protection principles.
Understanding the place of breast implants in aesthetic surgery correctly is critical in terms of preventing their unnecessary use and correctly managing patient expectations. Implants are medical materials designed primarily to increase or recreate breast volume. In cases where the breasts are structurally small (hypomastia or micromastia), volume loss occurs after childbirth and breastfeeding, deformations due to significant weight changes, or there is a significant volume difference (asymmetry) between the breasts, implant use is a valid and effective method to provide the desired fullness to the breast. In addition, implants are frequently preferred for breast reconstruction after mastectomy operations where the breast is removed due to breast cancer. Revision surgeries to replace previously placed implants or to correct implant-related complications are other situations where implant use is valid.
The common point of these scenarios is that implants are used to compensate for an existing volume deficiency in the breast or to replace lost tissue. The “need” for volume restoration or creation is at the forefront in these cases. Enlarging breasts that are perceived as “small” by the individual for aesthetic purposes can be better described as a “desire.” While both situations are valid reasons for implant consideration, ethical considerations differ when an implant is offered solely for the purpose of shape change despite sufficient existing volume. A “desire” for shape change does not automatically lead to a “need” for an implant if that shape can be achieved with existing tissue.
Implants are valuable tools in the aesthetic surgeon’s toolbox; however, like every tool, there are specific applications for which they work best (in this case, volume). While it is possible to hammer a screw, it is not optimal and can cause damage. Similarly, implants, which are a volumetric device,, using it primarily for contouring purposes (when other contouring tools are available and the tissue is sufficient) may be misapplication. Therefore, it is critical for the surgeon to help the patient understand whether their desire is a true lack of volume or a desire for a shape change that may have less invasive, tissue-sparing solutions.
When planning breast aesthetics, preserving the patient’s own natural breast tissue should be a top priority, both aesthetically and functionally. Natural breast tissue has unique properties that implants cannot fully mimic. This tissue has a unique softness, mobility, and natural response to the body’s hormonal changes. No matter how advanced an implant may be, it is ultimately a foreign body and cannot fully reflect these dynamic properties of natural tissue.
Long-term integrity and the aging process must also be considered. Natural tissue ages and changes in line with the rest of the body. Implants, on the other hand, may need to be replaced or removed in certain cases. Procedures that reshape existing tissue aim for results that age more in line with the body and evolve more naturally over time.
One of the fundamental ethical principles of medicine, the principle of “Primum Non Nocere,” opposes the unnecessary removal or jeopardy of healthy, functional tissue if the desired aesthetic goal can be achieved with alternative, less invasive, or tissue-preserving methods. Similarly, the principle of “Beneficence” asks what is in the patient’s long-term best interest: If the patient’s own tissue can be used for shaping, is it really in the patient’s best interest to expose them to the potential risks of a foreign body? The “less is more” philosophy adopted by experienced surgeons also supports this approach; that is, the aim is to perform the least invasive procedure necessary to achieve the desired result. This philosophy directly overlaps with the principle of preserving natural tissue. The principles of breast-conserving surgery should be based on respect for healthy tissue in cosmetic surgery, as in cancer surgery.
Replacing or significantly sacrificing healthy breast tissue with an implant for shaping purposes is a decision that is difficult to reverse. While implants can be removed, the original, untouched breast tissue condition cannot be fully restored if it has been removed or significantly altered. This emphasizes the importance of preserving the natural and finite. Every surgical intervention has a “biological cost” – tissue trauma, healing burden, risk of complications. If existing tissue can be reshaped, for example by a mastopexy (breast lift), the biological cost is limited to the manipulation of this tissue. However, if an implant is used unnecessarily for shape when volume is sufficient, the patient bears both the biological cost of implant surgery (such as foreign body reaction, risk of capsular contracture, potential rupture/leakage, need for revision) and the cost of changing the existing tissue to accommodate the implant. This cumulative biological cost may be higher and less justifiable if the primary goal (shape) can be achieved at a lower biological cost by working with existing tissue alone.
This issue should be emphasized: If a woman has sufficient natural tissue volume in her breasts and the primary aesthetic goal is shape change (e.g., elimination of sagging, a more upright form), using implants to achieve this goal is unnecessary. This emphasis on necessity stems from the risk-benefit imbalance that occurs when implants deviate from their primary purpose of volume creation.
When implants are used for their primary purpose of volume increase, the benefit achieved (achieving the desired volume) can be weighed against the potential risks and found acceptable. However, when implants are used unnecessarily for the sole purpose of shaping when volume is sufficient and shaping is possible by other methods, the patient is exposed to all the risks inherent to implants without achieving the primary benefit (the volume required). This tilts the risk-benefit ratio against the patient.
The potential consequences of this unnecessary exposure should not be ignored. The primary risks associated with implants are:
If the aesthetic goal of “better shape” can be achieved by working with the patient’s own existing, healthy tissue and without the risks associated with this specific device, why subject the patient to this list of potential short- and long-term problems? The unnecessary use of implants is not only related to the implant itself, but also to the patient being unnecessarily exposed to the full risk profile of the implant when the primary indication (lack of volume) is not present. This can be seen as the “medicalization of the contouring problem.” Problems such as sagging or suboptimal shape are often related to skin laxity and tissue distribution in the presence of adequate volume. Using a foreign body (implant) to address these issues opens the patient up to potential new pathologies that they would not normally encounter, such as capsular contracture and BIA-ALCL. The original problem (e.g. ptosis) does not inherently require a foreign body; the chosen solution (implant for shape) brings with it this new dimension of medical risk.
If there is sufficient volume in the breast and the primary goal is to correct shape and contour, the surgical approach should focus on techniques that reshape and reposition the existing breast tissue. In this case, the use of implants may mean taking unnecessary risks, as detailed above. This is where alternative methods that are tissue-preserving and aim for natural results come into play:
The Ideal Solution for Sagging and Shape Problems: Breast lift or mastopexy is a surgical procedure designed specifically to improve the appearance of sagging (ptotic) breasts. In this procedure, excess skin is removed, breast tissue is reshaped, and the nipple-areola complex is moved to a more youthful and aesthetic position. Mastopexy is ideal for patients who are generally satisfied with the volume of their breasts but are concerned about sagging, loss of firmness or downturned nipples. This procedure works with the patient’s own breast tissue to reshape it; it does not add artificial volume or remove healthy glandular tissue for shaping purposes. A breast lift without implants offers a more natural appearance, is less invasive, may require a shorter recovery time and does not carry the potential complications of implants. The surgeon determines the most appropriate lift technique based on factors such as breast and areola size/shape, skin elasticity, amount of excess skin and degree of sagging.
In some cases, these methods can be combined to achieve the best aesthetic result. For example, a breast lift may be combined with fat injections to give the breast a fuller upper pole contour or overall softness. If some volume increase is desired with the lift and the patient's own fat is not sufficient, then a combined mastopexy with a smaller implant may be considered. However, even in this case, the lift takes on the primary shaping role while the implant is used only to compensate for the remaining volume deficiency; This is consistent with the principle that “implants are for volume.”
The following table compares the implant-focused approach to tissue-sparing approaches for contouring in the presence of sufficient breast tissue:
| Feature | Implant-Focused Approach (For Shape) | Tissue-Sparing Approach (Mastopexy) |
| Primary Purpose (For Shape) | To contour the breast with the shape and position of the implant. | To optimize the natural form by reshaping the existing breast tissue and skin. |
| Effect on Existing Tissue | Existing tissue may be altered or reduced to make room for the implant. | Existing breast tissue is preserved and reshaped is shaped. |
| Material Used | Silicone or saline filled prosthesis (foreign body). | Patient’s own breaste texture. |
| Naturality (Feeling and Appearance) | Depending on the type and placement of the implant, it may differ from the natural tissue. | Generally more natural feeling and appearance. |
| Risks (For Formative Use) | Implant-specific risks such as capsular contracture, rupture, infection, malposition, BIA-ALCL. | General risks specific to surgery (infection, bleeding, scarring), melting of a portion of the fat in fat injection. |
| Long-Term Maintenance/Revision | Revision or replacement may be required in some special cases in implants | There is no risk of implant-related problems. |
| For Whom It Is More Suitable (In Sufficient Volume For Shape) | This approach is not recommended for shape when there is sufficient volume. | Those who are satisfied with their volume but have sagging, deformity or contour irregularity. |
This comparison aims to provide an informed basis for patients to choose the most appropriate and least risky method for their situation. It is important to understand that breast aesthetics does not only mean "breast augmentation", but that extremely satisfactory results such as lifting, reshaping and contour improvement can be achieved using existing tissue. Problems such as sagging are primarily related to the skin envelope and the position of the tissue; instead of trying to solve these problems indirectly with a volume solution, an implant, a treatment that directly targets these layers, such as mastopexy, is more effective and anatomically correct.
One of the most important decisions to make on the breast aesthetics journey is choosing the right surgeon. Working with a surgeon who embraces the philosophy of preserving existing breast tissue and using implants only when necessary (primarily for volume) is critical for natural and long-term satisfactory results.
The consultation process is an invaluable opportunity to understand the surgeon's approach and make an informed decision. Patients should not hesitate to ask their surgeon specific questions such as:
The surgeon’s answers to these questions will help us understand how much importance he or she places on tissue preservation and natural results, his or her experience with alternative procedures, and his or her sensitivity to the patient’s individual needs. Setting realistic expectations is also an integral part of this process. The surgeon should clearly explain what can and cannot be accomplished with the patient’s own tissue or with implants. An approach that recommends implants first, even when sufficient tissue is present, does not sufficiently discuss tissue-sparing alternatives, or downplays the patient’s concerns about preserving their native tissue, warrants careful consideration.
Informed consent includes not only understanding the risks of the procedure but also being aware of all viable treatment options, especially those that do not include implants when the primary goal is to remodel sufficient tissue. The consultation serves as a “litmus test” to assess not only the surgeon’s technical skill but also their surgical philosophy. A surgeon who is open to tissue preservation and alternatives demonstrates that they have a broader toolkit and an approach that respects the patient’s priorities. Patients should be active advocates for their own bodies and long-term well-being during this process, seeking a partnership that is not just directed but also a decision-making partner.
When it comes to breast aesthetics, the most basic principle should always be to respect and protect the patient's own natural tissue. Breast implants are undoubtedly valuable and effective tools for adding fullness to breasts in cases of volume deficiency. However, if a woman has sufficient natural tissue volume in her breasts and the aesthetic goal is primarily to change the shape, eliminate sagging, or achieve a more upright form, using implants to achieve these goals is often an unnecessary approach. In such cases, it is important to preserve the existing natural tissue and reshape it.methods – such as breast lift (mastopexy) and/or fat injection – are generally more accurate, healthier and less problematic in the long term.
The aim of cosmetic surgery is to create harmony with the patient’s overall physique and to emphasize the person’s unique beauty rather than imposing an artificial standard or unnecessarily sacrificing natural tissue. The results obtained by working with natural tissue generally offer a more natural feel and appearance, accompany the body’s aging process more harmoniously and eliminate or reduce the long-term risks and revision needs specific to implants.
With this awareness, it is vital that every individual considering breast aesthetics receives consultation from experienced and ethically board-certified plastic surgeons who are transparent about all options, prioritize patient well-being and the integrity of natural tissues. It is possible to emphasize your natural beauty in the best and healthiest way by making conscious and correct decisions that are at peace with your body. Remember, a "successful" breast aesthetic should not only be about achieving a certain size or shape, but also about long-term tissue health, minimal intervention, and authentic results that are unique to you. This is a contemporary aesthetic approach that emphasizes the preservation and exaltation of natural tissue, especially when volume is not the primary concern.
Dr. Celal Alioğlu, MD is a plastic and aesthetic surgery specialist. He works in his own private clinic. An active member of national and international professional associations, Dr. Alioğlu is in constant communication with his colleagues and closely follows the latest developments in his field. He also regularly attends national and international congress courses to increase his knowledge and experience.
More About Dr. Celal+
