ISAPS 2025: Context for Dr. Choi’s 2,130-Case Presentation

At ISAPS 2025, Dr. Choi presented a retrospective case series describing 2,130 breast augmentation procedures. Conference presentations like this typically aim to share clinical experience, technique details, and observations that may be useful to other surgeons and patients. They do not replace controlled research and should be read as context, not definitive proof of comparative safety or efficacy.

The presenting surgeon is documented as Motiva Global KOL, 2024–2026 (3 consecutive years) and Motiva Asia-Pacific Instructor, 2026. The clinic has reported 3,000+ Motiva-registered breast augmentations and has noted the 2,130-case ISAPS 2025 presentation as clinical context only. These numbers are useful for understanding experience and practice patterns but are not evidence that a specific device or technique produces better outcomes for every patient.

If you want a plain patient-focused overview of breast augmentation procedures, the ISAPS patient guide provides an accessible summary of the procedure and what patients may expect: https://www.isaps.org/discover/patients-home/procedures/breast-procedures/breast-augmentation/ (/procedures).

What a Retrospective Case Series Can — and Cannot — Establish

What it can show

  • Patterns and common technical approaches used in a single surgeon’s or single-centre practice.
  • Complications and follow-up findings as observed in that cohort, recognizing the limits of the data collection.
  • Practical tips about incision choice, implant positioning, and postoperative care that may inform shared decision-making.

Considering breast augmentation? Book a personalized consultation with Dr. Sangmun Choi to discuss your goals and learn how the Preservé technique can work for you.

What it cannot prove

  • Causation between a device or technique and an outcome. Retrospective series can show associations but are prone to bias.
  • Generalizable comparative effectiveness against other devices, implants, or techniques. Without concurrent controls and randomized assignment, differences may reflect selection, surgeon preference, device availability, or follow-up patterns rather than true superiority.
  • Population-level safety or incidence rates that apply equally to all patients; larger, designed studies and registries are required for robust risk estimates.

Simple comparison: retrospective series vs randomized trial

FeatureRetrospective case seriesRandomized controlled trial (RCT)
Can identify practice patterns✓✓
Can establish causation✗✓ (more likely)
Prone to selection biasHighLower (if randomized)
Generalizable risk estimatesLimitedHigher (if well powered)

When reading Dr. Choi’s presentation, or any single-surgeon series, consider the difference between observational reporting and hypothesis-testing research.

For general patient-facing information about risks and complications associated with breast implants, see the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s summary of risks and complications: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/breast-implants/risks-and-complications-breast-implants (/faq).

How to Interpret Conference Findings as a Patient

Conference material is often preliminary and descriptive. Here are practical ways patients can interpret such material safely:

  1. Treat a single case series as educational context, not as definitive proof.
  2. Ask whether the findings have been peer-reviewed and published in a journal, and whether the report includes clear methods and follow-up.
  3. Request information about how outcomes were defined and measured, length of follow-up, and how many patients were lost to follow-up.
  4. Compare the described experience with regulatory and independent sources on risks and considerations.

The FDA’s patient-facing considerations on breast implants summarize questions patients should think about before deciding: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/breast-implants/things-consider-getting-breast-implants (/faq).

Patient Questions to Raise After Seeing a Presentation

If you see a conference presentation or hear about a particular device or technique, consider asking your surgeon:

  • Is this experience presented as a retrospective series, and what were its inclusion and exclusion criteria?
  • How long were patients followed, and how were complications recorded?
  • How does this surgeon’s approach differ from other common approaches, and why is it chosen for specific patients?
  • What are the known risks, and where can I read official patient-facing safety information? (Refer to regulated resources such as the FDA risk page above.)
  • How will you tailor technique, implant selection, and aftercare to my anatomy, goals, and medical history?

These questions help move the discussion from generalized claims toward individualized planning.

Conference Context: When Presentations Matter — and When They Don’t

Conferences like ISAPS are important venues for technique-sharing and early data presentation, but they have constraints:

  • Time-limited presentations cannot fully replicate the depth of a peer-reviewed paper.
  • Abstracts and slides may summarize complex data and can omit details needed to assess bias or applicability.
  • Presentations are subject to selection bias: results reflect who the surgeon chose to treat and how outcomes were measured.

Use conference findings as a prompt to seek further detail — published papers, registries, and independent reviews — and to ask how the reported experience might translate to you personally.

Informed Consent Without Presenting Case Series as Comparative Proof

Informed consent should be individualized, with clearly communicated uncertainties. When a surgeon references a case series during consent:

  • The series can be described as a source of clinical experience, technique notes, and observed complication types.
  • It must not be presented as definitive comparative proof that a device or technique is superior.
  • The surgeon should disclose potential conflicts of interest or industry relationships, and—if relevant—explain the scope and limitations of any device-related data.

Consent should include a frank discussion of risks, alternative options, and realistic recovery expectations. For device-specific considerations, patients can consult the manufacturer pages for device descriptions, and always pair that with independent regulatory information such as the FDA pages linked above. For example, general device overviews are available from manufacturers; an example of such a patient-oriented device overview is at Motiva: https://motiva.health/patients-implant-overview/ (/articles/motiva-preserve-korea-complete-guide).

Practical Next Steps for Patients

You can learn more about our team on /profile, review procedure details on /procedures, check common questions on /faq, and book a consultation on /booking. For clinic context and policies see /about. Our pillar guide for patients considering Motiva Preservé is Motiva Preservé in Korea: The Complete Guide.

Final considerations

Conference case series are valuable for professional exchange and can inform discussions between a patient and surgeon. However, they are not a substitute for well-designed comparative studies or regulatory safety summaries. When evaluating any surgical option, prioritize individualized informed consent and verified, up-to-date sources about risks and device information.

How to Read Conference Information as a Patient

Conference presentations can help patients understand the questions clinicians are studying, but a presentation should not be read as an outcome forecast. A retrospective review usually reflects one practice, one patient population, and decisions made during a particular period. Its results may not transfer to another patient with different anatomy, history, priorities, or follow-up access. For broader patient education, the ISAPS breast-augmentation guide describes the procedure and emphasizes surgical planning choices, while the FDA’s safety information covers known risks and potential future interventions.

A useful consultation can connect those general resources to an individual plan. Patients may ask what information from a presentation is relevant to their circumstances, what remains uncertain, and how they would be monitored if concerns arise. This approach treats academic activity as context for informed discussion—not as a substitute for clinical judgment or consent.

Sources

Sources

This article is for informational purposes only and is not medical advice. Individual suitability, recovery, and results vary.

Ryan Plastic Surgery Videos

Watch:

Suture is like breathing

Why Smaller Implants Are Often the Better Choice