Traditionally, all implants were round. The majority of all implants used are still round in this cosmetic surgery. Viewed from the front, they are circular and in profile, they appear to be half moon shaped. The consistency of most round implants is semi-fluid like and termed “cohesive gel”. Ten years ago, a newer, more cohesive silicone gel (McGhan type 410) was introduced which is became known as the tear drop shaped implant. As the composition of this gel is more set, compared to the more fluid gel of the round implants, it acts like a solid unit, and therefore a shape has been produced which mimics the natural profile of the breast. These implants are slightly taller than they are wide and are fuller in the bottom. There tends to be a smoother transition from the upper chest wall to the top of the breast and not quite so much of a “step-off” as can sometimes be seen with the round type implants.Therefore in theory this tends to give a slightly more natural shape. Of course, as a result of the preset shape of the tear drop implant, accurate positioning must be performed during the surgery to ensure the implant is placed precisely, and in the right orientation, in order for the benefits of the shape to be seen. In practice however there is not as much of a difference as one may think. Generally speaking, in comparison, the round implants give the breast a slightly more circular or rounded appearance with more upper half breast fullness, whereas the tear drop shaped implant gives a more sloping profile to the breast. The disadvantages to the tear drop shaped implants are that: 1. not all breast shapes will benefit equally from this particular type of implant. 2. there have been reports of the implants moving out of place, or turning around within the pocket, with resultant loss of shape after plastic surgery. 3. The cohesive gel of the tear drop also feels slightly firmer to touch, sometimes making the edges of the implant more palpable. The decision as to which one suits you best will be discussed at the consultation, but as a general guideline it would be right to say that in selected patients the anatomical implants may offer some benefits, but in the large majority of women seeking breast enlargement, round implants are very successful and produce an equally natural looking result. It is reassuring to know that, as a result of the thick gel composition of all the newer cohesive-gel implants, in the unlikely event of any rupture or breakage of the shell, leakage of the contents does not occur in the traditional sense as it would in the standard liquid silicone gels.