The Ideal Breast: Insights From a Patient's Survey and a Global Aesthetic Surgery Consensus at the A.M.B.E.R.

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.