Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 1187–1194 | Cite as

Metrics of the Aesthetically Perfect Breast

  • Bishara Atiye
  • Fadel ChahineEmail author
Original Article Breast Surgery


Breast surgery has long been viewed as an art more than a science. However, defining and objectively measuring the ideal breast morphology and aesthetic proportions are fundamental for surgical planning and to setting the goals of surgery as well as to evaluate surgical outcomes. Despite the fact that much has been written about aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery, there is still no real consensus about what the attributes are of an ideal breast. Moreover, there are in fact no objective standard measurement systems and guidelines to describe ideal or even normal breast shape. Though there is great variability in the perception of beauty among patients and surgeons alike due to many factors among which are age, sex, and sociocultural background, there is common agreement that beauty is a universal phenomenon that has a universal standard present across all civilizations and centuries, and that perceived beauty is enhanced and optimal aesthetics are achieved when proper measurements are made and anthropometric proportions as well as attractive harmonious ratios are respected. The current review is an attempt to summarize the most relevant information available trying to introduce some harmony in our perception of aesthetic ideals of breast surgery.

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


Breast Metrics Infra-mammary fold Nipple/areola complex 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Hall-Findlay EJ (2010) The three breast dimensions: analysis and effecting change. Plast Reconstr Surg 125:1632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mallucci P, Branford OA (2012) Concepts in aesthetic breast dimensions: analysis of the ideal breast. J Plast Reconstr Aesth Surg 65:8e16Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broer PN, Juran S, Walker ME, Ng R, Weichman K, Tanna N, Liu YJ, Shah A, Patel A, Persing JA, Thomson JG (2015) Aesthetic breast shape preferences among plastic surgeons. Ann Plast Surg 74(6):639–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atiyeh BS, Hayek SN (2008) Numeric expression of aesthetics and beauty. Aesth Plast Surg. 32:209–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fantozzi F (2013) Applications of anthropometry in torsoplastic surgery. Eur J Plast Surg 36:519–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schwarz G, Zins J (2011) Correlation of pluralistic aesthetic evaluation with objective measurements. Ann Plast Surg 67(1):12–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Adamson AA, Zavod MB (2006) Changing perceptions of beauty: a surgeon’s perspective. Facial Plast Surg 22:188–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hwang K, Park JY, Hwang SW (2015) A consideration of breast imagery in art as depicted through western painting. Arch Plast Surg 42(2):226–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Swami V, Tovée MJ (2007) Perceptions of female body weight and shape among indigenous and urban Europeans. Scand J Psychol 48:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Voracek M, Fisher ML (2002) Shapely centrefolds? Temporal change in body measures: trend analysis. Br Med J 325:1447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dixson BJ, Duncan M, Dixson AF (2015) The role of breast size and areolar pigmentation in perceptions of women’s sexual attractiveness, reproductive health, sexual maturity, maternal nurturing abilities, and age. Arch Sex Behav 44(6):1685–1695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Westreich M (1997) Anthropomorphic breast measurement: protocol and results in 50 women with aesthetically perfect breasts and clinical application. Plast Reconstr Surg 100:468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Swanson E (2017) A measurement system and ideal breast shape. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Swanson E (2012) A measurement system for evaluation of shape changes and proportions after cosmetic breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 129:982–992 (discussion 993) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Avşar DK, Aygit AC, Benlier E, Top H, Taşkinalp O (2010) Anthropometric breast measurement: a study of 385 Turkish female students. Aesthet Surg J. 30(1):44–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brody GS (2003) The perfect breast: Is it attainable? Does it exist? Plast Reconstr Surg 113(5):1500–1503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liu YJ, Thomson J (2011) Ideal anthropomorphic values of the female breast correlation of pluralistic aesthetic evaluations with objective measurements. Ann Plast Surg 67:7–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Martinovic ME, Blanchet NP (2017) BFACE: a framework for evaluating breast aesthetics. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(2):287e–295eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sheldon WH, Stevens SS, Tucker WB (1940) The varieties of human physique. Harper, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    del Yerro J, Martin L, Vegas MR, Fernandez V, Moreno E, Sanz I, Puga S, Vecino MG, Biggs T (2013) Selecting the implant height in breast augmentation with anatomical prosthesis: the “Number Y”. Plast Reconstr Surg 131:1404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Penn J (1955) Breast reduction. Br J Plast Surg 7:357e–371eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Atiyeh B, Dibo S (2014) Preoperative assessment tool for planning of inframammary incision and implant profile in breast augmentation. Aesthet Plast Surg 38(5):878–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Atiyeh B, Ibrahim A, Saba S, Karamanoukian R, Chahine F, Papazian N (2017) The infra-mammary fold (IMF): a poorly appreciated landmark in prosthetic/alloplastic breast aesthetic and reconstructive surgery—personal experience. Aesthet Plast Surg 41(4):806–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Regnault P (1976) Breast ptosis. Clin Plast Surg 3:193–203PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Serra-Mestre JM, Fernandez Peñuela R, Foti V, D’Andrea F, Serra-Renom JM (2017) Breast cleavage remodeling with fat grafting: a safe way to optimize symmetry and to reduce intermammary distance. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(5):665e–672eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lassus C (1999) Update on vertical mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 104(7):2289–2298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brown TP, Ringrose C, Hyland RE et al (1999) A method of as- sessing female breast morphometry and its clinical application. Br J Plast Surg 52:355–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lewin R, Amoroso M, Plate N, Trogen C, Selvaggi G (2016) The aesthetically ideal position of the nipple–areola complex on the breast. Aesthet Plast Surg 40(5):724–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Khan HA, Bayat A (2008) A geometric method for nipple localization. Can J Plast Surg 16(1):45–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tebbetts JB (2013) A process for quantifying aesthetic and functional breast surgery: I. Quantifying optimal nipple position and vertical and horizontal skin excess for mastopexy and breast reduction. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hauben DJ, Adler N, Silfen R, Regev D (2003) Breast–areola–nipple proportion. Ann Plast Surg 50(5):510–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Broer PN, Juran S, Walker ME, Ng R, Weichman K, Tanna N, Liu YJ, Shah A, Patel A, Persing JA, Thomson JG (2015) Aesthetic breast shape preferences among plastic surgeons. Ann Plast Surg 74(6):639–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sharif SP (2017) Development and psychometric evaluation of the breast size satisfaction scale. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 30(8):717–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Prantl L, Gründl M (2011) Males prefer a larger bust size in women than females themselves: an experimental study on female bodily attractiveness with varying weight, bust size, waist width, hip width, and leg length independently. Aesthet Plast Surg 35(5):693–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Raposio E, Belgrano V, Santi PL, Chiorri C (2016) Which is the ideal breast size? Some social clues for plastic surgeons. Ann Plast Surg 76:340–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Barber N (1998) Secular changes in standards of bodily attractiveness in American women: different masculine and feminine ideals. J Psychol 132:87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zelazniewicz AM, Pawlowski B (2011) Female breast size attractiveness for men as a function of sociosexual orientation (restricted versus unrestricted). Arch Sex Behav 40(6):1129–1135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yang J, Zhang R, Shen J, Hu Y, Lv Q (2015) The three-dimensional techniques in the objective measurement of breast aesthetics. Aesthet Plast Surg 39(6):910–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kim H, Mun GH, Wiraatmadja ES, Lim SY, Pyon JK, Oh KS, Lee JE, Nam SJ, Bang SI (2015) Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging-based breast volumetry for immediate breast reconstruction. Aesthet Plast Surg 39(3):369–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hwang K, Park JY, Hwang SW (2015) a consideration of breast imagery in art as depicted through western painting. Arch Plast Surg 42(2):226–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hsia HC, Thomson JG (2003) Differences in breast shape preferences between plastic surgeons and patients seeking breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 112(1):312–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Xi W, Perdanasari AT, Ong Y, Han S, Min P, Su W, Feng S, Pacchioni L, Zhang YX, Lazzeri D (2014) Objective breast volume, shape and surface area assessment: a systematic review of breast measurement methods. Aesthet Plast Surg 38(6):1116–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Patel N (2008) Discussion: numeric expression of aesthetics and beauty. Aesthet Plast Surg 32:217–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Qiao Q, Zhou G, Ling Y (1997) Breast volume measurement in young Chinese women and clinical applications. Aesthet Plast Surg 21:362–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sigurdson LJ, Kirkland SA (2006) Breast volume determination in breast hypertrophy: an accurate method using two anthropomorphic measurements. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Longo B, Farcomeni A, Ferri G, Campanale A, Sorotos M, Santanelli F (2013) The BREAST-V: a unifying predictive formula for volume assessment in small, medium, and large breasts. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:1eCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.American University of Beirut Medical CenterBeirutLebanon

Personalised recommendations