Talk:Breast augmentation

Technique section

might we be able to add a technique section?

image filenames

all the attempts at keyword spamming in image filenames ("Dr._Placik_Chicago_Arlington_Heights_IL") needs to go. thank you dr placik for contributing but please keep filenames generic. this is not an advertising venue for your practice nor an acceptable method of stuffing keywords into search engines. 75.129.62.48 (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"Enlargement" is more neutral than "aumentation"

There's a discussion elsewhere which might be more relevant here:

• Talk:Breast_implant#Point-of-view_pushing_re:_.22augmentation.22

. Gronky (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There is this article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_enlargement

I think that this needs to redirect to this article and implement the relevant info 107.216.116.49 (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Missing Size Info

This article is severly information-limited, eschewing basic information for speculation and critical conversation instead. Please consider revisiting the basics of Wikipedia regarding this article!

At the very least there needs to be present a table(s) relating gram-weight sizes to final cup-sizes, and a presentation of size increase after implant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.69.235 (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's not use marketing terms

I changed the intro to remove a lot of marketing-speak about "aesthetically enhancing the natural size" of breasts etc. Here's my edit: . Gronky (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Follow up response:

I have edited the text, and restored the medical article impartiality.

Otto Placik (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Organization and content is a mess

I've made some attempts at reorganizing the material in this article, but it still doesn't make as much sense as I'd like. We have a section on surgical procedures (which conflates general information about procedures with specific information about implant procedures), and another separate section on non-implant augmentation (which are also surgical procedures). And the article is filled with medical jargon that is not appropriate for a general audience. The amount and style of the jargon suggests that much of the prose here was plagiarized from various sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Anachronist, I'm with you, having no doubt at all that the prose in the article was/is a blatant copyright violation. I hope it won't be once I get through with it.--Quisqualis (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020: Article really wanting in some respects

The wording and organization of this article were egregiously poor when I first encountered it. Further, there was a tendency toward low-key hype and a downplaying of certain hard realities. I realize that this article is probably visited mostly for the photos, but it also should be, for patients, a factual counterpoint to the poop-loads of promotional "medical" websites found online.

I hope to butcher, reorganize and reality-check this sorry sack of poo in the coming days. NB: I also call into question, on principle, the validity of any "reliable source" originating from this industry, even if the authors are university-affiliated, but that is a problem for another day.--Quisqualis (talk)

@Quisqualis: I haven't visited this article in a long time. Thanks for taking on the burden to make it better. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: and @Anachronist:, the article remains a mess, filled with medical jargon, disorganized and extensive quotes of tiny studies (e.g.n=17) and is now, finally, totally outdated. I came here because of a CDC publication from today of complications of medical tourism for procedures including liposuction, you guessed it, for contouring and breast augmentation.This page still needs to be overhauled big time, placed multiple issues flag .--Wuerzele (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

What I don’t understand is why in an article about breast augmentation we get so little about the medical procedure. Instead, almost right off the bat, women who get breast augmentation are vilified and labeled as mental patients, with very little evidence to prove that. The bit about 8% of women in Denmark who had breast augmentation having a psychiatric hospitalization is just absurd. Without noting the percentage of psychiatric hospitalizations in the general public, what conclusions can be made from that? Why does that bit of information even appear in the article? How is that germane or instructive concerning breast augmentation? This whole article feels like a biased screed by someone with a very negative opinion of breast augmentation with an axe to grind. Here in the talk, there are editors threatening to “butcher” this article. Why? This article should firstly be instructive about the procedure, outcome, benefits and risks. Information about why women (or men) choose this surgery and the general state of their mental health should be secondary, or split into a separate article about body dysmorphia or the psychology of individuals who undergo elective plastic surgery in general. People read this article to be informed about the procedure, not vilified or shamed by intimating that only the mentally ill elect such a surgery. The whole article needs to be to be rewritten with a clear agenda that all articles on Wikipedia should have and that is fact-based, cited information about the topic. As it is now, it’s a mess of clearly biased, pointless and spurious diatribes about women who choose this surgery. Supertheman ^(talk) 02:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Additional Procedures

Temporary saline infusion increases 3 cup sizes, fairly safe, takes about an hour, lasts about 24 to 48 hours as the saline is absorbed, costs about $2500, some people are doing it at home for far less. Considered non surgical. Infection rate about the same as tattooing.

Polypropylene string. Banned in US, and many countries. A wad of plastic like fishing line is implanted in a surgical breast pocket. The wad fills with serum, and does not stop requiring frequent draining as the breast will continue to enlarge. Largest implants on record. High chance of infection.

Temporary expanders are being used as permanent implants. Occasionally over filled as such large implants are banned.

In the past foam rubber, and glass implants were used. 98.164.76.40 (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Psychology Section

The psychology section previously had incorrect information about several items. In the section it stated that: "The studies Body Image Concerns of Breast Augmentation Patients (2003) and Body Dysmorphic Disorder and Cosmetic Surgery (2006) reported that the woman who underwent breast augmentation surgery also had undergone psychotherapy, had low self-esteem, presented frequent occurrences of psychological depression, had attempted suicide, and had body dysmorphia – a type of mental illness wherein she perceives non-existent physical defects."

The studies do not show that ALL women who got the surgery had attempted suicide, had psychotherapy, had low self-esteem and had body dysmorphia. Instead, the studies show a higher prevalence for those things among women who had the surgery, and in most of those cases it occurred prior to the surgery, not post-operatively. Therefore, the paragraph was edited to reflect the actual data from the studies and it was edited to indicate whether it pertained to the women pre or post-operative.

The paragraph was also edited to correctly identify body dysmorphia as it was defined in the study cited. The sentence previously stated the definition as a person perceiving "non-existent physical defects", which is only the delusional variant. In the study it is defined as: "...extreme dissatisfaction and preoccupation with a perceived appearance defect that often leads to significant functional impairment". It does not define it as a "non-existent" defect, but a "perceived appearance defect".

The paragraph needs work to attach each study to the various assertions, rather than listing them all and tagging the end of the paragraph with a flood of references. Supertheman ^(talk) 09:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)