Bishara Atiyeh1, Fadi Ghieh1, Ahmad Oneisi2. 1. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon. 2. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon. oneisi.ahmad@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Volume restoration and enhancement of the gluteal region appearance has become nowadays a popular concern in particular for many women. Several options are available, none however are without complications and side effects. Volume enhancement with soft tissue fillers of the gluteal region is emerging as a highly attractive minimally invasive modality. It has led unfortunately to more unlicensed, nonmedical practitioners administering illicitly injections for buttock augmentation at relatively low costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To determine safety, efficacy, and cost effectiveness of mostly used soft-tissue fillers for buttock augmentation, a systematic literature search of PubMed, Medline, and Embase was conducted to identify the mostly used fillers for gluteal augmentation. It was complemented by searching for each of the identified filler material separately to retrieve any missed reports. References of clinical studies and trials, reviews, and consensus reports were reviewed as well for the same objective. RESULTS: In the final analysis 12, mostly strongly biased clinical reports providing a low level of evidence, were identified for inclusion in the review. Two studies involved Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), 5 Poly-L-lactic acid, 1 Calcium hydroxyapatite and 4 hyaluronic acid filler injection. No studies were identified involving liquid silicone or Polyacrylamide hydrogel. The little available evidence provided by this review indicates that a specific brand of PMMA in Brazil has a demonstrable relatively good safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness record superior to surgical alloplastic gluteal augmentation or to lipofilling only when injected by experts. CONCLUSION: Gluteal augmentation with soft tissue fillers is not as simple and innocuous as advertised. Serious complications may occur. Moreover, optimal buttock contouring entails not only volume augmentation but also volume removal; thus, volume augmentation with soft tissue fillers may not be ideal. Popularizing this modality must also be approached with great care. Serious complications do occur; they become inevitable when performed illegally by non-specialized, non-authorized, and unscrupulous practitioners in non-accredited facilities. Patients must be warned that adherence to regulations is critical and that only well-trained certified experts practicing legally in accredited facilities can address safely and efficiently their concerns. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
BACKGROUND: Volume restoration and enhancement of the gluteal region appearance has become nowadays a popular concern in particular for many women. Several options are available, none however are without complications and side effects. Volume enhancement with soft tissue fillers of the gluteal region is emerging as a highly attractive minimally invasive modality. It has led unfortunately to more unlicensed, nonmedical practitioners administering illicitly injections for buttock augmentation at relatively low costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To determine safety, efficacy, and cost effectiveness of mostly used soft-tissue fillers for buttock augmentation, a systematic literature search of PubMed, Medline, and Embase was conducted to identify the mostly used fillers for gluteal augmentation. It was complemented by searching for each of the identified filler material separately to retrieve any missed reports. References of clinical studies and trials, reviews, and consensus reports were reviewed as well for the same objective. RESULTS: In the final analysis 12, mostly strongly biased clinical reports providing a low level of evidence, were identified for inclusion in the review. Two studies involved Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), 5 Poly-L-lactic acid, 1 Calcium hydroxyapatite and 4 hyaluronic acid filler injection. No studies were identified involving liquid silicone or Polyacrylamide hydrogel. The little available evidence provided by this review indicates that a specific brand of PMMA in Brazil has a demonstrable relatively good safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness record superior to surgical alloplastic gluteal augmentation or to lipofilling only when injected by experts. CONCLUSION: Gluteal augmentation with soft tissue fillers is not as simple and innocuous as advertised. Serious complications may occur. Moreover, optimal buttock contouring entails not only volume augmentation but also volume removal; thus, volume augmentation with soft tissue fillers may not be ideal. Popularizing this modality must also be approached with great care. Serious complications do occur; they become inevitable when performed illegally by non-specialized, non-authorized, and unscrupulous practitioners in non-accredited facilities. Patients must be warned that adherence to regulations is critical and that only well-trained certified experts practicing legally in accredited facilities can address safely and efficiently their concerns. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Authors: Carlo M Oranges; Mathias Tremp; Pietro G di Summa; Martin Haug; Daniel F Kalbermatten; Yves Harder; Dirk J Schaefer Journal: Aesthet Surg J Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 4.283
Authors: Ângela Roda; Ana Marcos-Pinto; Paulo Filipe; Luís Soares-de-Almeida; João Maia-Silva Journal: Int J Dermatol Date: 2021-07-17 Impact factor: 2.736