Page 44 - Read Online

potential shapes based on the proximity of the breasts to superior part increases considerably and the contours bend
each other and on the width of the cleavage at the inferior away from the midline. This results in a wider cleavage in
and superior poles. These can be classified as the ‘‘cocktail the superior half when compared to cocktail glass cleavage
glass’’, the ‘‘champagne glass’’, the ‘‘hourglass’’ and the ‘‘hi- [Figure 1b].
ball glass’’.
The ‘‘hourglass’’ shape defines a cleavage in which the
The ‘‘cocktail glass’’ appearance, as the name suggests, is medial contours of the breast almost touch at a simple
the shape of the cleavage where the breasts are in close point of contact. When compared to the ‘‘cocktail glass’’ and
proximity and there is no space between them in the inferior ‘‘champagne glass’’ appearance, breasts with an hourglass
half of the cleavage. The superior part of the cleavage acutely cleavages have less proximity between them. The width of
curves away from the breasts in a relatively linear fashion the cleavage is minimum at the midpoint between superior
and inferior poles of the cleavage and increases almost
symmetrically towards both these ends [Figure 1c].

The shape that defines a ‘‘hi-ball glass’’ cleavage is one where
breasts are at a considerable distance from each other. The
shape of this cleavage is such that the width of the cleavage
stays considerably constant through its length [Figure 1d].

“CRANIOCAUDAL” OR “BIRD’S EYE” VIEW

To classify cleavages according to this view, the breasts
and cleavage should be observed from above the head of a
patient with the patient in a neutral position. From this view,
the cleavage can be classified based on its width as well as
the proximity of the breasts to each other into four shapes:
the ‘‘cocktail glass’’, ‘‘goblet glass’’, ‘‘margarita glass’’ and
‘‘tumbler glass’’.
The ‘‘cocktail glass’’ appearance is one in which the breasts
are in close proximity to each other and there is a point
in the cleavage where the breasts meet, leaving no visible
Figure 1: Cleavage classification based on anteroposterior point of view
gaps between the breasts. The breasts then curve anterio-
laterally in a relatively linear manner towards the areola. The
shape formed by this cleavage is similar to a cocktail glass
[Figure 2a].
Similarly there is the ‘‘goblet glass’’ appearance which is a
result of a close proximity of the breasts to each other, while
having no point of contact between them. The shape of the
cleavage is such that it forms a curved shape in the center of
the inter-mammary cleft which then curves antero-laterally
towards the areola. When compared to the cocktail glass
appearance the curves are more pronounced as compared
to more linear ones in the earlier [Figure 2b].

The ‘‘margarita glass’’ cleavage is similar to both the cocktail
glass and goblet glass cleavages with the exception that the
width of the inter-mammary cleft is wider and the medial
breast is more curvy and tapers antero-laterally more acutely
[Figure 2c].

Figure 2: Cleavage classification based on craniocaudal point of view Lastly the ‘‘tumbler glass’’ appearance is one where the
breasts are further apart leaving a greater space between
leaving a wider, exposed region of the cleavage [Figure 1a]. them. The medial curves of the breasts descend postero-
medially in a sharp manner and thus do not extend further
A ‘‘champagne glass’’ appearance represents a cleavage in towards the midline. This leaves a flat region in the
which though the breasts are in close proximity they are cleavage representing the region superficial to the sternum
not in contact leaving a visible region between the breasts that lacks breast tissue. The shape is such that instead of
through the total length of the cleavage. The width in the being curved the cleavage has a rectangular or ‘‘boxy’’
inferior half remains short and constant, while that of the appearance [Figure 2d].
Plast Aesthet Res || Vol 3 || Issue 1 || Jan 15, 2016 37