Surgeon keeps saying "base width" and "profile" when I ask about cc. How did your surgeon actually size you?

#1LaurenP83(Joined Jun 2026 · 4 posts)June 19, 2026, 9:36 pm

First consultation was on Tuesday and I've come out more confused than I went in, which I didn't think was possible after a year of research.

I walked in with a number. 400cc, because someone I follow online had 400 and it's exactly the look I want. The surgeon listened, then got a tape measure out and measured across my chest and each breast, said my breast base is about 12cm, and from then on every answer to my cc questions came back in words like "base width" and "footprint" and "moderate-plus versus high profile." The range he actually suggested was 300 to 340cc, and when I pushed on 400 he said something about it "spilling past my footprint" and loading my tissue.

So now I'm sitting here feeling like I got talked down from what I actually want, and also slightly suspicious in the other direction, like, is 340 the sensible-shoe option I'll regret? Mostly I don't understand the vocabulary. I thought cc WAS the size. Why does the same cc apparently look different on different people, and what is profile actually FOR? How did your surgeons do the sizing, was it this measurement-led everywhere or is mine just conservative?

#2Natalie88(Joined Nov 2024 · 26 posts)June 20, 2026, 9:03 am

Mine did the exact same thing, tape measure first, cc last, and the explanation that finally made it click for me came via a whiteboard drawing I'll try to do in words.

An implant is basically a dome. Base width is the diameter of the circle it sits on, and profile is how tall the dome is for that circle. Your ribcage and breast fix the diameter, that's the measurement he took, because an implant wider than your natural breast edge ends up sitting in your armpit or past your cleavage line, and it looks off in a way that's hard to un-see. So the diameter is more or less decided FOR you. The only lever left is how far forward the dome pushes, which is profile, and volume just falls out of those two choices. Same 350cc on my narrow-chested friend was a tall dome on a small circle, very projected; on me it was a wider, flatter dome, much more subtle. Identical number, completely different chest.

Once I understood that, "what cc are you getting" started to sound like asking "what temperature is your oven" without saying what you're baking.

#3sixweekspost(Joined Feb 2025 · 11 posts)June 20, 2026, 12:47 pm

The follow-someone-with-your-dream-result thing is such a trap and I say that as someone who fell straight into it. Her 400 is sitting on her ribcage, her tissue, her starting breast, her posing and her lighting. On your 12cm base, the LOOK you're admiring might be what 320 produces. You want her outcome, not her number.

#4EmmaLouise31(Joined Jan 2026 · 7 posts)June 20, 2026, 10:30 pm

Oh this thread is very much my area, I'm the resident cautionary-tale-turned-convert (my week 3 meltdown is one section over). I agonised between 300 and 350 for months, three separate sizer sessions, chose 325, spent the early weeks convinced it was too small, and at month four-and-a-bit I'm so glad I didn't go bigger.

Two things from the far side. First, the sizers in a fitted t-shirt were the only moment the numbers became real, everything before that was abstract maths and other people's photos. The volume I'd imagined as "just right" looked huge on my actual frame. Second, my surgeon's line on cup sizes has stuck with me: the rough rule people quote is something like 130 to 150cc per cup size on an average frame, and she called it a loose estimate at best, because cup letters aren't standardised anywhere. Chasing a number, whether it's a cc or a letter, is how people end up disappointed in both directions. Go do the sizer session before you mourn the 400.

#5Miss Charlotte VaneSurgical moderator(Joined Sep 2024 · 58 posts)June 22, 2026, 10:15 am

LaurenP83 said:

I thought cc WAS the size.

You've had remarkably good explanations above, so I'll mostly confirm and fill the gaps. What your surgeon did is exactly how sizing should work: we size from the chest outward, not from a cc inward. The base width measurement (your 12cm) sets the range of implant diameters that can sit within your natural breast footprint. For any given diameter, the manufacturer then offers a family of profiles, low through moderate, moderate-plus, high and beyond, the naming varies by brand, and each step up projects further forward and carries more volume on the same base. So cc is the output of two anatomical decisions, not the input. Natalie's dome picture is precisely right, and it's why the same 350cc genuinely is a different shape on different chests.

On the 400: a surgeon declining it for a 12cm base isn't conservatism, it's arithmetic plus honesty about tissue. An implant wider than your footprint, or heavier than your skin and breast tissue can support, buys a characteristic set of long-term problems: stretching and thinning of the tissue over it, visible or palpable edges, rippling, earlier sagging, and with all of that, a higher chance of revision surgery, which is a real operation with the same risks again. Reoperation after augmentation is already common, and implants are not lifetime devices whatever size you choose, so the size that ages well is the kinder decision to your future self. Being advised down at a consultation is usually the consultation working. The site's guide to how implant size is actually chosen walks through cc, profile and the footprint idea in more detail, and the piece on questions to ask at your consultation is worth taking to your sizer appointment.

What no forum can tell you is what your tissue will carry, that takes an examination, so the specific 300-versus-340-versus-more conversation belongs with your surgeon, and a second opinion from another properly qualified plastic surgeon is a perfectly reasonable thing to want if trust is wobbling. But from what you've described, the process you met on Tuesday is the one you'd hope for.

#6LaurenP83(Joined Jun 2026 · 4 posts)July 5, 2026, 7:22 pm

Update: went back for the sizer session on Thursday. Put the 330 moderate-plus sizers in a fitted top and honestly it was already more than I'd pictured 400 being, which has scrambled my brain in the best way. Booked for the autumn. Still lighting a small candle for the imaginary 400, who it turns out never existed on my ribcage in the first place. Thank you all, especially for the dome thing, I've since explained it to two friends with a cereal bowl.