Article -> Article Details

Most breast implants today are positioned beneath the muscle, but that fact is meaningless unless you understand why the majority decision exists and when it stops being the right choice. People obsess over percentages when they should be focused on mechanics, anatomy, and long-term consequences. Implant placement is not a popularity contest; it is a risk–reward calculation.

Under-the-muscle placement became dominant because it solves multiple problems at once. When an implant is positioned beneath the pectoralis muscle, it gains an additional layer of coverage. That coverage matters most in the upper portion of the breast, where thin patients often lack natural tissue. Without muscle coverage, implants in these patients can look abrupt, round, and artificial. The muscle smooths that transition and reduces the chance that the implant edge becomes visible over time. This is not aesthetic snobbery—it is physics applied to human anatomy.

Another reason beneath-the-muscle placement is more common is predictability. Surgeons are paid to deliver stable results, not optimistic ones. Implants placed under the muscle are less prone to visible rippling, especially with silicone implants. They also demonstrate lower rates of capsular contracture, a complication that can harden the breast and distort its shape. Lower complication rates mean fewer revisions, fewer unhappy patients, and fewer lawsuits. For experienced plastic surgeons Orland Park patients rely on, this predictability is a critical factor in surgical planning, regardless of what marketing brochures claim.

Breast health considerations quietly reinforce this dominance. When implants sit beneath the muscle, breast tissue remains more accessible during imaging. Mammograms, ultrasounds, and MRIs are generally easier to interpret when implants are not directly behind the glandular tissue. This does not mean above-the-muscle placement is unsafe, but it does mean beneath-the-muscle placement creates fewer diagnostic obstacles over decades. Surgeons who think long term factor this in, even if patients rarely ask about it.

However, under-the-muscle placement is not free of cost, and pretending otherwise is dishonest. Recovery tends to be more painful because muscle tissue is disrupted. Tightness, pressure, and restricted movement last longer. Some patients experience animation deformity, where implants visibly shift when the chest muscles contract. For someone who regularly lifts heavy weights or relies on upper-body strength, this can be more than a cosmetic issue—it can be functionally irritating. Choosing under the muscle without acknowledging these trade-offs is not conservative; it is careless.

Above-the-muscle placement continues to exist because, in certain bodies, it works extremely well. When implants are placed between the breast tissue and the muscle, recovery is faster and less painful. There is no muscle involvement, which means no animation deformity and fewer restrictions on chest movement once healing is complete. In Orland Park cosmetic surgery practices, this approach is often considered for patients who value rapid recovery or maintain physically demanding routines, where functional movement matters more than subtle differences in implant coverage.

Body composition is the deciding variable most people ignore. Patients with thicker breast tissue or post-pregnancy volume already have natural coverage over the implant. In these cases, placing the implant above the muscle does not automatically lead to visible edges or unnatural shape. The risk profile changes entirely when sufficient tissue exists. This is why blanket statements like “under the muscle is always better” signal laziness, not expertise.

The reason statistics still favor placement beneath the muscle is that the average patient does not have ideal tissue thickness. Many are slim, many choose silicone implants, and many want results that still look natural ten or twenty years later. Under-the-muscle placement is more forgiving as bodies age, weights fluctuate, and tissues thin. The same long-term durability principles that guide decisions in procedures like liposuction Orland Park patients seek—where tissue behavior over time matters—also influence why beneath-the-muscle placement remains the safer default for the largest number of people.

What patients often misunderstand is that the majority preference does not equal personal suitability. The question “What do most people do?” is the wrong starting point. The correct question is “What risks am I willing to accept for my anatomy and lifestyle?” A physically active patient may tolerate a slightly higher risk of implant visibility to avoid muscle distortion. A slender patient may accept a longer recovery to achieve smoother contours. These are strategic decisions, not cosmetic whims.

Modern plastic surgery favors placement beneath the muscle because the field has shifted toward long-term outcomes rather than short-term convenience. Earlier decades emphasized quicker recovery and dramatic volume. Today’s standards prioritize natural contours, complication reduction, and longevity. That philosophical shift, more than fashion or fear, explains why under-the-muscle placement now dominates surgical practice.

So yes, the majority of breast implants are positioned beneath the muscle. That fact reflects risk management and anatomical reality, not dogma. Above-the-muscle placement is not outdated or inferior; it is simply more selective. The correct placement depends on tissue thickness, activity level, implant type, and tolerance for specific trade-offs. Any explanation that reduces this decision to a single “best” option is incomplete, and any surgeon who refuses to discuss these nuances is not acting in the patient’s best interest.