The woman wanting a lift is usually slightly different. She had breasts she was happy with before, she had loving kids who she may or may not have breastfed, exercised and had a good life. They come wanting to restore the youthful breast they once they had(or better), they hate that it is slightly more deflated than before and it's slightly more south then they'd like. The formal name of this operation is "Mastopexy" and that's why you hear terms like "Mastopexy augmentation" because often in order to restore the youthfulness of the breast you not only need to reposition the nipple/areolar complex "up" with a mastopexy, you also need to provide some additional volume with an implant, hence augmentation as well. The discussion with implant also is entirely different discussion all together, but this highlights the primary difference in the reduction and a lift.
Firstly about surgical technique. Breast lift and reduction employ similar surgical technique, it's just that with reduction you're removing more breast tissue (because the biggest aim of a reduction is.... to reduce the size of the breast). Does breast lift remove SOME breast tissue, the answer is yes, but the AIM of the lift is more to restore the youthfulness of the breast. Both women, one wanting a reduction vs a lift need their nipple/areolar complex repositioned "up". Only the woman wanting a reduction need the volume addressed.
The human body's immune response to a surgically installed foreign object—breast implant, cardiac pacemaker, orthopedic prosthesis—is to encapsulate it with scar tissue capsules of tightly woven collagen fibers, in order to maintain the integrity of the body by isolating the foreign object, and so tolerate its presence. Capsular contracture—which should be distinguished from normal capsular tissue—occurs when the collagen-fiber capsule thickens and compresses the breast implant; it is a painful complication that might distort either the breast implant, or the breast, or both.
The breast cancer studies Cancer in the Augmented Breast: Diagnosis and Prognosis (1993) and Breast Cancer after Augmentation Mammoplasty (2001) of women with breast implant prostheses reported no significant differences in disease-stage at the time of the diagnosis of cancer; prognoses are similar in both groups of women, with augmented patients at a lower risk for subsequent cancer recurrence or death. Conversely, the use of implants for breast reconstruction after breast cancer mastectomy appears to have no negative effect upon the incidence of cancer-related death. That patients with breast implants are more often diagnosed with palpable—but not larger—tumors indicates that equal-sized tumors might be more readily palpated in augmented patients, which might compensate for the impaired mammogram images. The ready palpability of the breast-cancer tumor(s) is consequent to breast tissue thinning by compression, innately in smaller breasts a priori (because they have lesser tissue volumes), and that the implant serves as a radio-opaque base against which a cancerous tumor can be differentiated.
Manufacturer’s warranty programs can mitigate some of the costs of treating complications. But, the warranty payment is only available if a rupture is detected. Some surgeons fail to inform their patients of the need for periodic MRIs, or downplay the FDA recommendation in order to make a sale. “Many women don’t know about the maintenance costs and potential expenses of silicone gel implants,” reports Dr. Ellen Mahony, board-certified plastic surgeon in Westport, CT. “Because rupture with a silicone gel implant is ‘silent,’ it can go undetected for an extended period, often not becoming obvious until the process of capsular contraction has begun.” Capsular contraction leads to a more complex surgery. That means added surgical costs which your warranty may not cover.