My Breast Lift + Implant Surgery Experience and Why I Later Needed Revision
I am sharing this review to provide clear information for others researching breast lift and implant procedures. Everything I describe reflects my personal experience, based on my medical notes, my written communication with the clinic over several months, an independent opinion I later sought, and the findings from my revision surgery in Australia. I was later advised that my revision was considered medically necessary due to functional and structural concerns that had developed. My intention is not to express anger, but simply to share my experience as clearly and transparently as possible.
In August 2024, I underwent a breast lift with implants at the clinic. The operative report described a superior-pedicle vertical (lollipop) lift with dual-plane implants and vertical skin excision. From reading the report, I did not see references to additional internal support steps such as capsulorrhaphy or fold reconstruction. Although my external scars healed in a T-pattern, the documentation I received led me to understand the internal technique as a vertical lift rather than a full structural T-lift.
From day one after surgery, I noticed visible differences between the two breasts, including fold height, nipple level, and upper-pole volume. These differences became more noticeable over the following months. Before surgery, I understood my breast sagging to be in the Grade II–III range. During a later revision consultation, another surgeon explained to me that this level of sagging is often addressed with additional internal support techniques.
Over an 8-month period, I shared photos and raised concerns with the clinic. In the written responses I received, my outcome was generally described as normal, and I was offered an option for soft-tissue removal on one side for an additional fee, without discussion of internal repair. Based on how these communications were explained to me, the focus appeared to be on surface or cosmetic changes rather than on underlying structural considerations related to the internal support and pocket-positioning concerns I had raised. No warranty revision was offered. After I expressed disagreement with the proposed surgical approach and shared an independent surgeon's opinion, communication from the clinic eventually stopped.
During a later revision assessment with a surgeon in Australia, I was informed that soft-tissue removal alone would not typically address internal pocket reconstruction or implant displacement. I proceeded with revision surgery in October 2025, during which internal repairs and changes to the breast lift pattern were performed. Following this revision, my breasts appeared more symmetrical, supported, and stable.
This experience involved significant stress, uncertainty, reduced self-confidence, and considerable personal financial impact, including USD 7,540 for my initial surgery and AUD 23,000 for a later revision.
I understand that complications can occur with any surgery. However, based on my personal experience, the combination of early asymmetry, the concerns I raised over time related to support, pocket position, and symmetry, and the limited revision options offered to me that did not address these internal concerns, together with the communication challenges, ultimately led me to seek revision surgery elsewhere. The revision resulted in a better symmetrical, supported and stable outcome.
I hope that sharing my personal experience helps others make informed decisions.
