We welcome Dr. Swanson’s comments regarding our recent publication “Design for Natural Breast Augmentation: The ICE Principle.”1 His comments largely ignore previously published work defining concepts of breast beauty,2,3 venting personal opinion in place of objective observation. Our latest publication regarding the ICE principle puts design into practice.1 The ICE principle is a formula for inframammary fold incision planning as part of the process for determining implant selection and placement to reproduce the 45:55 ratio previously described as fundamental to natural breast appearance.1–3 It is a simplification of existing techniques4 taking into consideration just two implant parameters—height and projection—and computing these against the capacity of the breast. Although Swanson points out the complex three-dimensionality of the breast, it is precisely the simplicity of this formula that renders it so effective. We have prospectively demonstrated using the ICE principle for surgical planning in breast augmentation that an ideal natural breast may be achieved with high levels of consistency.1
Swanson insists that “filling the upper pole is the goal” and that “women prefer convex upper poles; they desire an ideal appearance, not necessarily a natural one.” The full upper pole is a desired appearance in clothing; it does not correspond with attractiveness of the naked breast as verified by our population study (82 percent of 660 women preferred the natural profile versus 13 percent who preferred the less natural profile).2 It is a subtlety that he and many others overlook.
With regard to his comments about the inframammary fold, it is perhaps not surprising that Swanson finds it difficult to control its position given his advocacy for oversized implants. His statement that large implants do not cause increased complications is depressingly archaic and goes against all the principles of tissue-based planning: consequences of oversized implants include palpability, rippling, wrinkling, compression, double-bubble deformity, bottoming out, atrophy of parenchymal tissue, tissue thinning, diminished skin blood supply, and increased capsular contracture rates, resulting in increased reoperation rates.5
Swanson comments that “talking down” implant volume in women with limited capacity is “patronizing.” Good medical care dictates that we keep our patients’ best interests at heart and, given the consequences described, this may result in a compromise in size. Swanson’s disregard for anatomy in favor of size is outdated and potentially harmful, ignoring one of the pillars of the Hippocratic oath: “first do no harm.”
The ICE principle puts theory into practice, combining tissue-based planning with aesthetic outcome. Swanson risks being “frozen” out of modern practice by ignoring the advancements in aesthetic breast surgery in favor of his outdated volumetric approach.
The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this communication.
Patrick Mallucci, F.R.C.S., F.R.C.S.(Plast.)
The Cadogan Clinic
Olivier A. Branford, Ph.D., M.R.C.S., F.R.C.S.(Plast.)
The Cadogan Clinic
The Royal Marsden Hospital
London, United Kingdom
1. Mallucci P, Branford OADesign for natural breast augmentation: The ICE principle.Plast Reconstr Surg20161371728–1737
2. Mallucci P, Branford OAPopulation analysis of the perfect breast: A morphometric analysis.Plast Reconstr Surg2014134436–447
3. Mallucci P, Branford OAConcepts in aesthetic breast dimensions: Analysis of the ideal breast.J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg2012658–16
4. Tebbetts JB, Adams WPFive critical decisions in breast augmentation using five measurements in 5 minutes: The high five decision support process.Plast Reconstr Surg20051162005–2016
5. Tebbetts JB, Teitelbaum SHigh- and extra-high-projection breast implants: Potential consequences for patients.Plast Reconstr Surg20101262150–2159
Letters to the Editor, discussing material recently published in the Journal, are welcome. They will have the best chance of acceptance if they are received within 8 weeks of an article’s publication. Letters to the Editor may be published with a response from the authors of the article being discussed. Discussions beyond the initial letter and response will not be published. Letters submitted pertaining to published Discussions of articles will not be printed. Letters to the Editor are not usually peer reviewed, but the Journal may invite replies from the authors of the original publication. All Letters are published at the discretion of the Editor.
Letters submitted should pose a specific question that clarifies a point that either was not made in the article or was unclear, and therefore a response from the corresponding author of the article is requested.
Authors will be listed in the order in which they appear in the submission. Letters should be submitted electronically via PRS’ enkwell, at www.editorialmanager.com/prs/.
We reserve the right to edit Letters to meet requirements of space and format. Any financial interests relevant to the content of the correspondence must be disclosed. Submission of a Letter constitutes permission for the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and its licensees and asignees to publish it in the Journal and in any other form or medium.
The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in the Letters to the Editor represent the personal opinions of the individual writers and not those of the publisher, the Editorial Board, or the sponsors of the Journal. Any stated views, opinions, and conclusions do not reflect the policy of any of the sponsoring organizations or of the institutions with which the writer is affiliated, and the publisher, the Editorial Board, and the sponsoring organizations assume no responsibility for the content of such correspondence.
The Journal requests that individuals submit no more than five (5) letters to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in a calendar year.