Breast augmentation

Breast augmentation increases the volume of the breast, either by placing an implant or by transferring the person's own fat. In medical terms the operation is called augmentation mammaplasty. This article covers what the operation involves, who it suits, the difference between implants and fat transfer, how recovery goes, which risks are involved, whether implants last a lifetime, how breast cancer screening is affected and what is known about breastfeeding.

What is breast augmentation?

In breast augmentation the person's own breast tissue stays in place and volume is added from outside. There are two ways to add it: placing an implant beneath the breast tissue or the chest muscle, or injecting fat taken from elsewhere on the body. The two can also be combined.

What the operation is not matters as well. Breast augmentation does not correct drooping. Where there is marked drooping, an implant alone will not lift the breast and often weighs it down further; a breast lift may also be needed. Breast augmentation does not change the risk of breast cancer either.

There is one more point to know from the outset. An implant is a foreign material placed in the body, and it cannot be guaranteed to last a lifetime. In most people the first implant stays in place without trouble for many years; in some it needs replacing over time. The longer an implant stays in place, the more the chance of problems such as rupture and capsular contracture rises.¹ Breast augmentation is therefore an operation with regular follow-up afterwards.

Who does it suit?

The most common reasons for seeking breast augmentation are breast volume that is small relative to the person's build, loss of volume after pregnancy and breastfeeding, a marked difference in size between the two sides, and structural differences in breast development.

In some situations the operation may be delayed, or the underlying problem should be treated first:

• Pregnancy and breastfeeding. Breast volume is unstable during this period
• An active infection anywhere in the body
• A finding in the breast tissue that has not been assessed or fully treated
• Smoking. The interval needed for stopping is set out below
• Marked drooping. An implant alone is not enough here, and a breast lift may also be needed

Breast development is expected to be complete. How long the size has been stable, weight changes, and the person's physical and psychological maturity are weighed together.

There is a further criterion, separate from these. The person is expected to know from the outset that they will attend regular follow-up and that a corrective operation may be needed later.

What does the examination look at?

The consultation starts by assessing expectations. What the person wants, how long they have wanted it, and what has already been considered are all asked about.

Measurements follow. The base width of the breast, skin elasticity, nipple position, the difference between the two sides, the shape of the chest and the degree of drooping are assessed. These measurements set the limit on which implant can be chosen. An implant markedly wider than the base of the breast will not sit on the tissue.

The thickness of the breast tissue and skin is also measured. Where the breast tissue covering the implant is thin, the edge of the implant can be felt or seen as rippling through the skin. That directly affects which plane is chosen.

Smoking, diabetes, blood pressure, current medication and previous operations are part of this conversation. Depending on age and history, breast imaging may be requested. If pregnancy or breastfeeding is planned, that should be raised; it affects both the timing and the method chosen.

How is the operation planned?

Five separate decisions are made in planning. Whether volume is added with an implant or with fat transfer, what type of implant is used, which plane it goes into, where the incision is made, and what size it will be.

Implant or fat transfer?

An implant is a foreign material placed in the body and carries the risks that follow from it.¹ Fat transfer places no foreign material in the body, but part of the added volume disappears over time.

A meta-analysis of fat transfer to the person's own breast, pooling 4,425 participants from 47 studies, found that on average about 53 per cent of the transferred fat was retained per breast, and that fat necrosis was reported in 4.7 per cent per participant. A further session was needed in some people. That meta-analysis covers not only primary cosmetic augmentation but also symmetrising the opposite breast after a breast reconstruction. Variation between studies was very high across all outcomes.²

This average does not predict any one person's result. How much of the transferred fat remains varies markedly from person to person and with the technique used, and more than one session may be needed to reach the desired volume. Calcifications that can form after fat transfer may also produce findings on mammography that require assessment, which is why the radiologist needs to know what was done.³

Which plane does the implant go into?

The layer the implant sits in is called the plane. Four options are used:

• Subglandular plane (beneath the breast tissue): the implant sits directly under the breast tissue, on top of the muscle
• Subfascial plane (beneath the muscle fascia): the implant sits under the thin sheet covering the chest muscle
• Submuscular plane (beneath the muscle): the implant sits under the chest muscle
• Dual plane (partly beneath the muscle): the upper part of the implant sits under the muscle and the lower part under the breast tissue

A meta-analysis comparing all four planes, pooling 51,524 patients from 91 studies, reported capsular contracture, that is, tightening of the scar tissue around the implant that hardens the breast, most often in the subglandular plane (6.85 per cent). It was 2.80 per cent in the subfascial plane, 1.99 per cent in the dual plane and 1.83 per cent in the submuscular plane. The same study found no significant difference in blood collection between the subglandular and submuscular planes, and other complications were infrequent in all four planes.⁴

These are pooled study averages, not risks caused by the plane on its own. Most of the studies are retrospective series; follow-up periods, implant characteristics and surgical techniques differ between them. Factors such as implant surface and patient selection are intertwined with the plane. The figures therefore do not establish a causal ranking between planes.

A change in the shape of the breast when the muscle contracts occurs only where the implant sits beneath the muscle. In the meta-analysis comparing the three placement planes, no accompanying increase in implant displacement, asymmetry or rupture was shown.⁵

There is no single plane that applies to everyone. The thickness of the breast tissue covering the implant, the degree of drooping, the characteristics of the implant, the person's work and their exercise habits are weighed together. Practice differs between surgeons.

How is the type of implant chosen?

Implants are defined by several characteristics. The filling may be silicone gel or saline. The shape may be round or teardrop-shaped (anatomical). The surface may be smooth or textured; a textured surface matters for the implant-associated lymphoma described below. Alongside these, the projection (profile) and the volume of the implant are decided.

The choice is not made on a volume figure alone. The width of the chest wall, the thickness of the existing breast tissue, the qualities of the skin, the width of the breast base, the projection wanted and the overall proportions of the body are weighed together.

Where is the incision made?

The incision can be made in the fold beneath the breast, at the edge of the areola or in the armpit. The choice depends on the type and size of the implant and on the shape of the breast.

How is implant size chosen?

Size is determined by the base width of the breast and by the person's own breast tissue and volume, not by a figure the person has in mind. An implant larger than the tissue can carry may give the desired appearance in the short term, yet over time thin the skin, pull the tissue down and make the edge of the implant visible.

In later years a second operation may be needed because of complications such as capsular contracture, implant displacement or rupture, and also because preferences about the appearance of the breast or the size of the implant have changed.

In a manufacturer-supported 10-year study of one family of implants that enrolled 1,788 patients, a change in implant style or size and capsular contracture were reported at similar frequencies among the reasons for reoperation (19.3 and 18.8 per cent).⁶ That study assessed primary augmentation, revision and reconstruction patients together; the figures are not the incidence of reoperation for all cosmetic breast augmentation patients.

Setting the size before surgery, by measurement and detailed discussion, makes expectations clearer.

How do you prepare for surgery?

Smoking and nicotine: Smoking is a risk factor for wound healing problems after surgery. Direct surgical data on nicotine products other than cigarettes are scarcer. The practice reference of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons notes a lack of clinical data on e-cigarette use and surgical risk, but states that because nicotine is known to reduce blood flow, e-cigarettes and other nicotine products are regarded as a potential risk factor.⁷ Stopping smoking, vaping and other nicotine-containing products at least 1 month before the operation, and not using them after surgery until healing is complete, is therefore advised. The studies below concern smoking cessation; their results do not establish the same reduction in risk for every nicotine product. A review pooling 6 randomised and 15 observational studies showed that every week of abstinence added benefit, and that studies with at least 4 weeks of abstinence produced markedly better results than shorter ones.⁸ A study appraising systematic reviews together reported that cessation interventions beginning at least 4 weeks before surgery and combining multiple behavioural support sessions with pharmacotherapy reduced complications. The same study notes that interventions with only one component, even when started more than 4 weeks before surgery, raise quit rates without reducing complications.⁹ Shorter intervals are not useless either: in a meta-analysis of 55 studies covering adults undergoing a range of operations, the risk of pulmonary complications was 27 per cent lower in relative terms among those who stopped at least 2 weeks before surgery, and 29 per cent lower among those who stopped at least 4 weeks before, compared with those who continued smoking.¹⁰ The benefit therefore grows as the interval lengthens; being late does not make stopping pointless. The interval applied and the nicotine policy can vary from surgeon to surgeon.

Weight: Weight is expected to be stable before surgery. In a study following 554 patients for a mean of 5 years, a high body mass index before surgery and weight gain afterwards were both associated with lower satisfaction scores.¹¹

Coexisting illness: Diabetes and blood pressure are expected to be under control before surgery. Where there is an active infection in the body, surgery is postponed.

Medication: Blood thinners and some herbal products can increase bleeding. Every medicine and supplement you take needs to be declared. Prescribed medication should not be stopped on your own decision.

Imaging: Depending on your age and history, breast imaging may be requested beforehand.

What is recovery like?

The intervals below are a general framework.¹² They can vary with the extent of the operation, the person's work, how quickly they heal and the surgeon's practice.

• The operation is done under general anaesthetic and usually takes 60 to 90 minutes
• The hospital stay is most often 1 night
• Sharp pain usually settles within 1 to 5 days; tightness and swelling can last a few weeks¹³
• Stitches that need removing are taken out within 2 weeks; dissolving stitches do not need removing¹²
• Returning to work takes 1 to 2 weeks for most people
• Driving waits at least 1 week
• Heavy lifting and strenuous exercise wait 4 to 6 weeks
• By 6 weeks most everyday activities are resumed and the scars begin to fade
• The breast starting to look more natural takes a few months

Immediately after surgery the breasts can look higher, tighter and unfamiliar. As the swelling settles, the tissues relax and the implant beds into its pocket, the breast moves out of this appearance and settles onto the fold beneath it.

Because bleeding into the pocket around the implant is possible in the first days, activity is kept limited early on.¹³

What to watch for after surgery

The following is a general framework. Where the instructions you were given differ, your surgeon's instructions apply.

Bra: A supportive bra or a band is worn after surgery. How long it is worn varies with practice; wearing it around the clock and continuing for months may be asked of you.¹² Your surgeon will say when to move to an underwired bra.

Sleeping: Lying on the back, or with the upper body slightly raised, is more comfortable for most people in the first weeks. When you can move to sleeping on your side or front depends on how healing is going and on your surgeon's advice.

Showering, wound and dressings: When you may shower depends on the dressing used. If there is a skin incision, once allowed you can shower without rubbing the wound and pat the area dry gently. Baths, swimming pools and the sea wait until the wound has closed completely.

Arm movement: The arms can be used for everyday tasks within the limits of pain. In the first weeks, sudden and forceful arm movements, heavy lifting and activities that stretch the chest are avoided. Where the implant sits beneath the muscle, returning to movements that work the chest muscle takes longer. Staying still for long periods is not right either. Short walks are encouraged early on and lower the risk of clots.

Pain: Pain and a feeling of pressure in the chest are expected in the first days and are controlled with the painkillers provided. Sharp pain usually eases within 1 to 5 days; tightness and swelling can last a few weeks.¹³

Returning to work and sport: Desk work is mostly resumed within 1 to 2 weeks. Work involving heavy lifting and strenuous sport are deferred for 4 to 6 weeks.¹² The return to movements that work the chest muscle hard can come later, depending on which plane the implant was placed in and how healing is going. Returning to exercise starts with walking and low-impact movement, leaving running and chest work until last.

Driving: At least 1 week is allowed.¹² You can drive once you can wear the seatbelt comfortably, perform steering movements and an emergency stop without pain, and are no longer taking painkillers that cause drowsiness.

Sexual activity: Sexual activity can resume once you feel comfortable and everyday movements no longer cause marked pain. In the first weeks, pressure on the breasts and forceful movement should be avoided.

Smoking and weight: Smoking impairs wound healing after surgery as well; cigarettes and nicotine products should be avoided until healing is complete. Gaining weight after surgery can change the shape of the breast.

What is normal: Swelling, bruising, a feeling of firmness and tightness in the breast, numbness at the nipple and in the breast skin, occasional stabbing pains and a temporary difference in swelling between the two breasts are all expected. The final shape of the breast takes months to settle.

How does the scar change?

Breast augmentation is an operation that leaves a scar. Where the scar falls depends on the incision chosen, but there is no scarless breast augmentation.

The scar looks red and raised in the first months, then fades and softens. This can take up to 1 year. Its final appearance depends on how the person heals, on skin colour and on the area; how well it will settle cannot be predicted with certainty beforehand.

Some measures can be used to reduce the chance of a scar becoming raised, widened or prominent. Once the wound has closed completely and on your surgeon's advice, silicone-based gel or silicone sheeting and scar massage may be suggested. These measures do not guarantee the outcome. Starting too early can harm the wound, so your surgeon sets the timing.

Direct sun darkens a scar, so it needs protecting during the first year.

Risks and complications

Complication rates vary widely between studies. The information below comes from particular patient groups and does not indicate any one person's individual risk. The definitions of the complications draw on the list of implant complications published by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).¹

Risks and unwanted outcomes

Capsular contracture: The body forms a thin layer of scar tissue around the implant. If that layer thickens and tightens, the breast hardens, its shape distorts and there may be pain. The degree of firmness is graded on a 4-point scale. At the third grade the breast is firm and looks abnormal; at the fourth, pain is added. These two grades count as severe capsular contracture and may require further surgery.¹ The cause of capsular contracture is not fully known. A manufacturer-sponsored 10-year study of one family of implants reported severe capsular contracture in 13.5 per cent when primary augmentation, revision augmentation, primary reconstruction and revision reconstruction groups were assessed together.⁶

Rippling and a palpable implant: Where the breast tissue covering the implant is thin, the edge of the implant can be felt or seen as rippling through the skin.

Altered sensation: Temporary numbness or heightened sensitivity in the nipple and breast skin is common and mostly settles over the first months. In a study following 162 patients with implants placed in the subfascial plane, 92.5 per cent had returned to their preoperative level of sensation by 12 weeks in all areas except the lower outer quadrant, where reduced sensation was found in 16.15 per cent; in 4 per cent of nipple-areola complexes sensation had not returned to its preoperative level by 12 weeks.¹⁴ That study covers one plane and 12 weeks of follow-up; it does not show what happens later. The FDA states that changes in breast and nipple sensation may be temporary or permanent.¹

Animation deformity: Where the implant sits beneath the chest muscle, the shape of the breast can change temporarily when the muscle contracts. This is called animation deformity and occurs with planes that place the implant under the muscle.⁵

Asymmetry: A difference in size, shape or level between the two sides can remain. Asymmetry present before surgery may not disappear entirely.

Fluid collection (seroma): Fluid collecting around the implant. Small collections may settle on their own; large collections need draining.

Other important complications

Blood collection (haematoma): It shows itself in the first hours or first days after surgery as rapidly increasing swelling, firmness and pain in one breast. A return to theatre may be needed to drain what has collected.

Infection: Presents with redness, warmth, increasing pain and discharge. It can appear in the first days after surgery but also much later. Where an infection does not respond to antibiotics, the implant may need to be removed.

Implant displacement: The implant can move from where it was placed. Gravity, trauma and capsular contracture can all cause this.

Tissue death and the implant coming through the skin: If the blood supply to the skin and the tissue beneath it is compromised, tissue loss can follow; in advanced cases the implant can come through the skin. Smoking, infection and excessive heat or cold therapy are listed among the causes that raise this risk.

Blood clots: A clot forming in the leg veins and travelling to the lungs is serious. One-sided leg pain and swelling, sudden shortness of breath or chest pain need urgent assessment.

Anaesthesia and other risks: Problems related to general anaesthesia, allergic reactions and pain persisting after surgery can occur.

Implant-associated lymphoma (BIA-ALCL)

This is not breast cancer. It is a lymphoma arising from immune system cells, and it is usually found not in the breast tissue but in the scar tissue around the implant or in the fluid collecting there.¹⁵

Its frequency has been calculated in populations where implant numbers are known. A systematic review pooling 17,038,371 people from 38 studies found a prevalence of 30.54 per 100,000 among those with textured implants, that is, roughly 1 in 3,274. Counting everyone with an implant of any surface, the figure falls to 6.70 per 100,000, roughly 1 in 14,925.¹⁶

These figures are averages calculated in defined groups of patients; they are not one person's lifetime risk. Published estimates vary widely with the surface of the implant and the degree of texturing, the manufacturer and product family, the population studied and the follow-up system.¹⁶

The risk is higher with textured implants than with smooth ones. Whether the filling is silicone gel or saline does not, on current data, appear to determine the risk.¹⁵

The symptoms appear long after the surgical wound has healed, often years after the implant was placed: persistent swelling in the breast, a palpable mass or pain. On assessment, fluid collecting around the implant is a frequent finding. Diagnosed early, most patients are treated successfully by removing the implant and the surrounding scar tissue; some need further treatment. Left too long, it can be fatal.¹⁵

For that reason, swelling that appears late and does not settle is a reason to see a doctor.

Besides BIA-ALCL, squamous cell carcinoma and some lymphomas other than BIA-ALCL have very rarely been reported in the capsule around the implant. The FDA states that while it believes these occurrences are rare, their cause, incidence and risk factors remain unknown, and adds that the true incidence cannot be determined from its reporting system. No figure is given here for that reason.¹⁷

New swelling, pain, a palpable mass or marked asymmetry appearing late needs assessment. Against that, the FDA does not recommend removing implants in people without symptoms solely because of this concern.¹⁷

Systemic symptoms

Some people with implants report complaints affecting the body as a whole: fatigue, joint pain, muscle pain, rash, and difficulty with memory and concentration. Patients use the term "breast implant illness" for this picture. What causes the symptoms is not understood at present.¹

There is at present no single validated test that identifies this picture, and the degree of any causal link between the symptoms and the implants has not been established.¹⁸

Some patients report improvement in their symptoms after the implant is removed; a systematic review examining this found a high rate of improvement.¹⁹ That finding should not be read as a success rate, for two reasons. The studies included patients who presented because of these complaints, so they do not represent everyone with an implant. And improvement in symptoms does not on its own prove causation, nor can it be expected in every patient.

The FDA reports that it has not detected an association between silicone gel implants and connective tissue disease, breast cancer or reproductive problems.¹ It continues to receive reports of systemic symptoms.¹⁸ Answering this question is stated to require larger and longer studies than those conducted so far.¹

Do implants last a lifetime?

They can, but it cannot be guaranteed. In some people the first implant stays in place for many years without any trouble; in others it needs replacing. How long an implant lasts varies from person to person and cannot be stated with certainty before surgery.

When a silicone gel implant ruptures, it is usually impossible to notice; this is called silent rupture. A silent rupture generally does not change how the implant looks or feels, and it may not be detectable by examination alone.¹ One review reports that only 30 per cent of gel implant ruptures produce findings detectable on examination, and that studies of rupture at 10 years report rates ranging from 8.7 to 24.2 per cent.²⁰ That range comes from different products and from long-term studies of different periods; it is not a single current rupture rate that holds for every implant in use today. The other side of the figure still stands: at 10 years, most implants are intact.

Knowing the manufacturer and model of the implant helps with follow-up. Keeping the implant card given after surgery is advised.²¹

Assessing the integrity of the implant with imaging is therefore advised in people with silicone gel implants and no symptoms. The current approach is an initial ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging without contrast 5 to 6 years after surgery, repeated every 2 to 3 years thereafter. This matches the FDA recommendation and appears in the current criteria of the American College of Radiology.²²²¹

Saline implants are different. In people without symptoms, no routine imaging is recommended for implant integrity; rupture of a saline implant is usually evident. Where rupture is suspected, ultrasound is used.²²

Where there are symptoms, assessment is needed whatever the type of implant. Where a problem with the integrity of the implant is suspected, such as rupture, magnetic resonance imaging without contrast is usually appropriate with silicone implants; ultrasound and mammography may be used depending on age. Where an implant-associated cancer is suspected, ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging with and without contrast is considered appropriate as the initial test.²²

An implant may also need replacing for reasons other than rupture. Capsular contracture, displacement, distortion of shape and dissatisfaction with the size are among them.

One point should be clearly understood. If the implant is removed and not replaced, the breast does not return exactly to how it was before surgery. Loosening of the skin, hollowing and drooping can remain.¹

Is breast cancer screening affected?

Two separate purposes of imaging should not be confused here. One is breast cancer screening, the other is the monitoring of implant integrity described above. They answer different questions and follow different schedules.

Breast cancer screening follows age, personal risk and the screening recommendations in force. Having an implant does not remove the need for it, and implants do not increase the risk of breast cancer.¹ A person of average risk who has implants does not automatically need ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging in addition to screening.

An implant can shadow part of the breast tissue on mammography. In an augmented breast, extra views that push the implant back and bring the breast tissue forward are therefore taken alongside the standard ones.²³ Screening in an augmented breast is entirely possible; what matters is choosing the technique to suit the implant. Where fat transfer has been done, any calcifications that form may also require assessment.³ Calcifications around an implant can furthermore be mistaken for cancer on mammography.¹

The magnetic resonance imaging used for the two purposes is not the same either. Implant integrity is assessed without contrast; the screening scan used in people at high risk of breast cancer is a separate indication and is usually done with contrast.²²

The practical consequence is simple. Anyone attending screening should say that they have an implant and which plane it was placed in. That information changes the technique used.

A 2013 meta-analysis reported a finding that outcomes might be worse in women with implants who were diagnosed with breast cancer; its authors stated that the result should be read with caution because of confounding factors.²⁴ A more recent review reports that implants do not increase the frequency of breast cancer.²³

These two sources are of different kinds and neither cancels the other. Whether implants affect the course of breast cancer has not been established.

Is breastfeeding possible?

Many people can breastfeed after breast augmentation. It cannot, however, be guaranteed that the operation will leave the chance of breastfeeding or the amount of milk entirely unaffected.

In a study following 4,679 women who gave birth after breast augmentation, 79.4 per cent breastfed at least one child. The most frequently reported difficulty was insufficient milk production.²⁵ That study was run as part of an implant manufacturer's post-approval follow-up programme and carries no comparison group.

Against that, a cohort study of women in their first pregnancy reported any breastfeeding in the first 3 months after birth in 70.7 per cent of those with implants and 85.1 per cent of those without.²⁶ That study is observational, and the two groups differed in age, body mass index and socioeconomic characteristics; those differences may have affected the result.

In a 2026 meta-analysis covering breast augmentation, breast reduction and nipple repair together, pooling 381,199 patients from 57 studies, the subgroup comparison between different surgical techniques and the group who had not had surgery was not statistically significant in its breast augmentation assessment (73.4 against 86 per cent, p=0.405). That does not prove surgery leaves breastfeeding unaffected; the absence of a significant difference does not establish equivalence.²⁷ An earlier meta-analysis of 11 studies pooled the comparative studies and found significantly lower odds of breastfeeding in women with implants.²⁸

This literature is observational and variation between studies is high. In sum: breastfeeding is possible for most people, it cannot be guaranteed that the operation leaves breastfeeding unaffected, and no firm ranking can be drawn between incision sites or planes.

The milk glands and milk ducts beneath the nipple and the nerves running to it matter here. Incisions at the edge of the areola pass anatomically closer to these structures; that proximity does not on its own lead to a lower rate of breastfeeding.

If you are planning to breastfeed, raise it before surgery. Both the site of the incision and the timing can change with that information.

What can be expected from the result?

Patient-reported satisfaction and quality of life scores rise markedly after surgery. In a meta-analysis pooling 18,322 patients from 39 studies, with preoperative and postoperative scores pooled separately, satisfaction with the breasts rose from 26.3 out of 100 to 72.7, psychosocial well-being from 37.2 to 75.0, and sexual well-being from 31.1 to 70.6.²⁹

The same study contains a further finding worth noting. The change in physical well-being scores was not statistically significant (75.8 to 83.9). Marked increases were reported in satisfaction and in psychological and sexual well-being, while the physical well-being results were not consistent.²⁹

These scores come largely from observational studies and from patients' own reports; they vary with the technique used and the length of follow-up, and they are not a guarantee of outcome for any one person.

The same study reports that the gain in psychosocial well-being was highest in the short term, while the increases in physical and sexual well-being persisted in the long term.²⁹

The result is not independent of the breast's own changes. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, weight change and ageing all continue to alter the shape of the breast after surgery.

When should you contact a doctor?

Early on, contact the surgical team in the following situations:

• Fever
• Increasing redness, warmth, discharge or bad odour at the wound
• Rapidly increasing swelling, firmness or pain in one breast
• The wound opening noticeably
• Pain that keeps increasing despite painkillers

Later on, the following need assessment:

• Persistent swelling, a palpable mass or pain in the breast, even years after surgery
• Hardening of the breast, a change in its shape, or displacement of the implant
• A change in the size or shape of the breast. This can be a sign of silicone implant rupture

The following two findings need urgent assessment:

• One-sided leg pain or swelling
• Sudden shortness of breath or chest pain

About the numbers in this article

The rates above come from studies in different patient groups, with different implants and over different periods. Implant technology has changed over time; results from long follow-up studies using older implants may not apply exactly to the implants used today. Long-term data on newer implants, on the other hand, do not yet exist. That dilemma means every figure concerning implants carries a margin of uncertainty.

Part of the long-term data on implants comes from follow-up studies run by implant manufacturers.

For that reason the numbers here do not predict any one person's result. They give a general framework only.

References

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Risks and complications of breast implants. Accessed 8 August 2026. fda.gov ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹²

2. Giannas E, Fritsch AM, Jeon H, et al. Fat survival following autologous fat transfer to the native breast: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2026;115:146-156. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2026.02.017 ↩

3. Groen JW, Negenborn VL, Twisk JWR, Ket JCF, Mullender MG, Smit JM. Autologous fat grafting in cosmetic breast augmentation: a systematic review on radiological safety, complications, volume retention, and patient/surgeon satisfaction. Aesthet Surg J. 2016;36(9):993-1007. doi:10.1093/asj/sjw105 ↩ ↩²

4. Alderhali R, Jamel WA, Dehnadi S, Seth I, Khajuria A. Implant pocket plane selection in primary breast augmentation: a meta-analysis and systematic review of complication profiles. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2026;50(11):3979-3987. doi:10.1007/s00266-026-05706-5 ↩

5. Shen Z, Chen X, Sun J, et al. A comparative assessment of three planes of implant placement in breast augmentation: a Bayesian analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2019;72(12):1986-1995. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2019.09.010 ↩ ↩²

6. Stevens WG, Calobrace MB, Alizadeh K, Zeidler KR, Harrington JL, d'Incelli RC. Ten-year core study data for Sientra's Food and Drug Administration-approved round and shaped breast implants with cohesive silicone gel. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141(4S):7S-19S. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000004350 ↩ ↩²

7. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Managing the risks of smoking in plastic surgery patients. Practice reference, 9 October 2024. Accessed 5 September 2026. plasticsurgery.org ↩

8. Mills E, Eyawo O, Lockhart I, Kelly S, Wu P, Ebbert JO. Smoking cessation reduces postoperative complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Med. 2011;124(2):144-154.e8. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2010.09.013 ↩

9. Fiddes RA, McCaffrey N. Preoperative smoking-cessation interventions to prevent postoperative complications: a quality assessment and overview of systematic review evidence. Anesth Analg. 2025;140(6):1377-1387. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000007187 ↩

10. Tang E, Rodriguez RM, Srivastava A, et al. Impact of short duration smoking cessation on post-operative complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Anesth. 2025;106:111967. doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2025.111967 ↩

11. Jørgensen MG, Hemmingsen MN, Larsen A, et al. Factors influencing patient satisfaction with breast augmentation: a BREAST-Q effect of magnitude analysis. Aesthet Surg J. 2023;43(11):NP835-NP843. doi:10.1093/asj/sjad204 ↩

12. National Health Service. Breast enlargement (implants). Accessed 8 August 2026. nhs.uk ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

13. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Breast augmentation recovery. Accessed 8 August 2026. plasticsurgery.org ↩ ↩² ↩³

14. Brown T. Objective sensory changes following subfascial breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J. 2016;36(7):784-789. doi:10.1093/asj/sjw005 ↩

15. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Questions and answers about breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). Accessed 8 August 2026. fda.gov ↩ ↩² ↩³

16. Ward JA, Calderbank T, Tang CC, Goddard NV, MacNeill FA, Tasoulis MK, Khan AA. Estimating the prevalence of breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2025;155(4):660e-669e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000011768 ↩ ↩²

17. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. UPDATE: reports of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in the capsule around breast implants. FDA safety communication. Accessed 4 September 2026. fda.gov ↩ ↩²

18. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Medical device reports for systemic symptoms in women with breast implants. Accessed 4 September 2026. fda.gov ↩ ↩²

19. Ferreira S, Barros AS, Marques M. Breast implant illness: symptoms, outcomes with explantation and potential etiologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2025;49(23):6600-6620. doi:10.1007/s00266-025-05142-x ↩

20. Ho IW, Chichura A, Pederson HJ, Xavier BA, Ritner J, Schwarz GS. Current state of evidence-based long-term monitoring protocols for breast plastic surgery patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2024;31(12):8372-8382. doi:10.1245/s10434-024-16003-3 ↩

21. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Breast implants: certain labeling recommendations to improve patient communication. Guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration staff. 29 September 2020. Accessed 4 September 2026. fda.gov ↩ ↩²

22. Expert Panel on Breast Imaging; Bennett DL, Brown A, Freer PE, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® breast implant evaluation: update 2025. J Am Coll Radiol. 2026;23(4):658-680. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2026.01.013 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

23. Valente DS, Marques Carvalho da Costa FJ, Volkmann BH, et al. The impact of breast cancer on cosmetic breast augmentation outcomes and screening challenges in patients with implants: a literature review. Transl Breast Cancer Res. 2026;7:16. doi:10.21037/tbcr-25-22 ↩ ↩²

24. Lavigne E, Holowaty EJ, Pan SY, et al. Breast cancer detection and survival among women with cosmetic breast implants: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BMJ. 2013;346:f2399. doi:10.1136/bmj.f2399 ↩

25. Jewell ML, Edwards MC, Murphy DK, Schumacher A. Lactation outcomes in more than 3500 women following primary augmentation: 5-year data from the Breast Implant Follow-up Study. Aesthet Surg J. 2019;39(8):875-883. doi:10.1093/asj/sjy221 ↩

26. Ram S, Shalev Ram H, Shalev Rosenthal Y, et al. The impact of breast augmentation on breast feeding in primigravida women: a cohort study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2022;268:116-120. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.11.436 ↩

27. Géczi AM, Pál P, Varga T, et al. Impact of breast augmentation, reduction, and nipple repair on breastfeeding success: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aesthet Surg J. 2026;sjag117. Online ahead of print. doi:10.1093/asj/sjag117 ↩

28. Chen J, Zhu XM, Huynh MNQ, McRae M. Breastfeeding outcome and complications in females with breast implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aesthet Surg J. 2023;43(7):731-740. doi:10.1093/asj/sjad027 ↩

29. Knoedler S, Knoedler L, Kauke-Navarro M, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction after breast augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of Breast-Q patient-reported outcomes. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2024;95:300-318. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2024.06.016 ↩ ↩² ↩³