Breast augmentation: A geographical comparison

Janae L. Maher, Della C. Bennett, Laura L. Bennett, Peter Grothaus, Raman C. Mahabir

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Scopus citations


Objective: To describe and compare physical characteristics and implant details of women undergoing primary cosmetic breast augmentation in different geographical locations. Methods: Three cohorts of 100 consecutive breast augmentation cases in university settings were retrospectively reviewed for patient demographic and implant information in Kelowna (British Columbia), Loma Linda (California, USA) and Temple (Texas, USA). Statistical analysis was performed with a Kruskal-Wallis test without normality assumption (P<0.05 was considered to be significant). Pearson correlation coefficients were also determined for body mass index (BMI) versus implant volume at each of the sites. Results: The three group medians were significantly different for weight, BMI and implant volume. Kelowna's average patient was 33 years of age, had a BMI of 20.8 kg/m2 and an implant volume of 389 mL. Loma Linda's average patient was 32 years of age, had a BMI of 21.6 kg/m2 and an implant volume of 385 mL. Temple's average patient was 36 years of age, had a BMI of 22.6 kg/m2 and an implant volume of 335 mL. Pearson correlations for BMI versus implant volume were statistically significant in the Loma Linda and Temple groups. Conclusion: Patients from different geographical locations undergoing breast augmentation were similar in age, height and parity, but varied in weight, BMI and implant volume. A positive linear correlation between BMI and implant volume was found in the American cohorts.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e44-e46
JournalCanadian Journal of Plastic Surgery
Issue number4
StatePublished - Dec 1 2010


  • Body mass index
  • Breast augment
  • Implant volume

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery


Dive into the research topics of 'Breast augmentation: A geographical comparison'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this