ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
The Ideal Breast: Insights From a Patient's Survey and a Global Aesthetic Surgery Consensus at the A.M.B.E.R.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The concept of the "ideal breast" in aesthetic surgery has historically varied across regions, with European surgeons favouring more natural outcomes and South American surgeons preferring fuller aesthetics. This study aimed to evaluate whether these regional differences persist in the context of increasing global connectivity and the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in aesthetic evaluation. During the Aesthetic Meeting on Body Enhancement and Rejuvenation (A.M.B.E.R. 2024), 80 plastic surgeons (70% European, 30% South American) assessed AI-generated images depicting variations in breast volume, projection, cleavage, and upper-to-lower pole ratio. Concurrently, 369 female patients completed a similar survey. Surgeons additionally answered technical questions about implant type, incision, and pocket preference. Statistical analysis revealed significant preferences across all parameters (p < 0.001) but no significant differences between European and South American surgeons (p > 0.05). Both surgeons and patients predominantly favoured moderate volume, pronounced projection, tight cleavage, and a balanced 50/50 upper-to-lower pole ratio. Technical preferences included the dual plane implant pocket and anatomical implants, with inframammary and periareolar incisions equally favoured. These findings suggest a convergence of aesthetic standards transcending geographic boundaries, likely influenced by global information exchange and digital innovation. The integration of AI for image generation and data analysis represents a methodological advancement in aesthetic research. These results support the development of standardized yet personalized surgical protocols to optimize patient outcomes. Further studies are warranted to correlate these aesthetic preferences with long-term clinical results and patient satisfaction.Level of Evidence V This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41361152What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.