Macrolane is a breast and body-contour filler which has received attention as a less invasive alternative to breast implant surgery, offering a breast size increase of around a cup size through injections that only take between 30 and 90 minutes. The treatment involves injecting stabilised hyaluronic acid into the breasts and the benefits are that it is minor surgery, requires only a local anaesthetic and will leave no scarring, although bruising, swelling and discomfort for a few days are expected. The effect however only lasts for a year, after which time further injections are required to 'top-up' the patient's initial treatment.

I've always thought this sounded great and in theory it is, but I've got my doubts now b/c I know some women that have had it done found it didn't last anything like the year they were expecting. If it doesn't last even that long, I'm not sure that it's ever going to get that popular or replace BA.

Macrolane is a more subtle step to take although more expensive than implants, which sounds contradictory, but the essence of the procedure is that it's safer than implants (though for me implants is still an option).

Macrolane are saying that since it was introduced into the UK 18 months ago the number of women receiving macrolane has reached 3,000.

How many of those have had macrolane instead of a breast augmentation and how many would never have had a breast augmentation, I wonder?

Macrolane is a hyaluronic acid (HA) currently available in Europe and is produced by the original manufacturers of Restylane. Although the primary objective was the treatment of soft tissue abnormalities management profile after liposuction, nozzles, some proponents of their use as an alternative to breast augmentation implant.