Since we're talking about surgeries, I have a bit of a question. Awhile back, I heard that a new method of top surgery existed called 'keyhole surgery', which removed breast tissue with a small incision under/around the nipple. However, basically every person in this thread has clearly opted for the other method of cutting a straight line under the breasts, which looks horrendous. Considering the fact breast cancer exists, so breast removal isn't that uncommon (unlike a vaginoplasty) is that actually the best we can do with surgery? Are they getting it cheap? Somewhere not very legit? Insurance not covering it? I'm really curious as to why so many of these results look so bad.
Depends on breast size. Biguns need more cutting and stitching to get a flat result or you get a lot of excess skin on each side of the incision -- so-called dog ears. A lot of these transmen are overweight so getting a flat smooth result is especially challenging.
FTMs are left with a fair amount of breast tissue to contour the chest. Which of course can still become cancerous -- 1 in 8 women including transmen get bc at some point in their lives, so they still need to do self exams and mammograms.
A MX for breast cancer removes all breast tissue, all the way from collarbone and sternum up to the armpits to get the 'tail of spence'. It leaves a kind of skeletal appearance which is a weird contrast to the rest of the torso.
A crappy surgeon will do the same oval incision no matter what the breast size. A good one will do a breast-reduction style and close the wound in an upside T shape. Reductions and trans get to keep the nipples (and I don't understand why so many transmen lose theirs), cancer pts lose them in most cases because cancer loves nips.
Lumpectomies are a whole other thing. These MUST get radiation, while mastectomies don't need it unless lymph nodes are involved -- stage 2 or 3 vs stage 1. Healing is pretty fast and uneventful for most mastectomies if that's all you really need. Honestly just staying flat after mastectomy is easier than you can imagine. 99.9% of people won't even notice unless you tell them.
Reconstruction is horrific. Insurance has to pay for it, so people will say 'hey, free boob job'. It's far more invasive than a normal boob job as there often isn't enough skin left to house the implant and requires tissue expanders that take months of saline fills. It has a horrible complication rate and even a cosmetically good result has no sensation. If you only remove one breast, reconstruction will never match the healthy one, and yoyou'll only lolook normal with clothes on.
Only people like Angelina Jolie, who only had an increased genetic risk for cancer and no actual disease can afford and expect movie star quality results. And I guarantee her new boobs are as numb as a pair of water balloons.
People have such unrealistic expectations about breast reconstruction, probably just as much as trans women have for their neovaginas.
