Gluteal Augmentation with Polymethyl Methacrylate: A 10-year Cohort Study.
Journal
Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open
ISSN: 2169-7574
Titre abrégé: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101622231
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2019
May 2019
Historique:
received:
22
11
2018
accepted:
30
01
2019
entrez:
24
7
2019
pubmed:
25
7
2019
medline:
25
7
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Many techniques for buttocks augmentation have been developed and published, for a more natural, satisfactory, and safe result for the patient. It has been a challenge to find a technique that presented not only volume gain but also gluteal remodeling. A total of 1,681 patients who underwent gluteal augmentation with Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) between 2009 and 2018 were selected for this retrospective cohort study. Data collected included demographics, procedures data, and postoperative outcomes. Side effects were calculated and compared using the Student's A total of 1,681 patients (1,583 women and 98 men) who underwent 2,770 gluteal fillings had their cases retrospectively analyzed. They were injected with 540,751.00 mL of PMMA injected. The patients' mean age was 39 years, and the mean volume injected in each section was 237 mL during the first procedure and 147 mL during the second procedure. The authors observed 52 cases presenting side effects, representing a rate of 1.88% of 2,770 procedures carried out. The statistically significant ( This study has demonstrated that gluteal augmentation with PMMA is one of the best options for this type of procedure. In addition, the findings suggest that the guidelines concerning gluteal augmentation must include PMMA filler as an option because PMMA proved to cause few side effects, as demonstrated by this patient cohort.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Many techniques for buttocks augmentation have been developed and published, for a more natural, satisfactory, and safe result for the patient. It has been a challenge to find a technique that presented not only volume gain but also gluteal remodeling.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 1,681 patients who underwent gluteal augmentation with Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) between 2009 and 2018 were selected for this retrospective cohort study. Data collected included demographics, procedures data, and postoperative outcomes. Side effects were calculated and compared using the Student's
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 1,681 patients (1,583 women and 98 men) who underwent 2,770 gluteal fillings had their cases retrospectively analyzed. They were injected with 540,751.00 mL of PMMA injected. The patients' mean age was 39 years, and the mean volume injected in each section was 237 mL during the first procedure and 147 mL during the second procedure. The authors observed 52 cases presenting side effects, representing a rate of 1.88% of 2,770 procedures carried out. The statistically significant (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study has demonstrated that gluteal augmentation with PMMA is one of the best options for this type of procedure. In addition, the findings suggest that the guidelines concerning gluteal augmentation must include PMMA filler as an option because PMMA proved to cause few side effects, as demonstrated by this patient cohort.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31333932
doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002193
pmc: PMC6571318
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e2193Références
Aesthet Surg J. 2010 May-Jun;30(3):411-3
pubmed: 20601566
Aesthet Surg J. 2008 Jan-Feb;28(1):70-6
pubmed: 19083509
Facial Plast Surg. 2009 May;25(2):114-9
pubmed: 19415579
J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2014 Aug;16(4):191-6
pubmed: 24684519
Clin Plast Surg. 2018 Apr;45(2):217-223
pubmed: 29519490
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007;60(8):922-8
pubmed: 17383947
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Feb;131(2):253e-259e
pubmed: 23358021
Arch Surg. 1973 Aug;107(2):206-10
pubmed: 4719566
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Sep;142(3):653-660
pubmed: 29878996
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Nov;130(5):706e-713e
pubmed: 23096624
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2007 Nov-Dec;31(6):651-6
pubmed: 17721720
Aesthet Surg J. 2003 Nov-Dec;23(6):441-55
pubmed: 19336115
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1991 Winter;15(1):85-91
pubmed: 1994655
J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2005;15(6):629-39
pubmed: 16393131
Aesthet Surg J. 2017 May 1;37(5):560-569
pubmed: 28203698
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2003 Sep-Oct;27(5):354-66; discussion 367
pubmed: 14648064
Aesthet Surg J. 2003 Mar;23(2):86-91
pubmed: 19336057
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Aug;130(2):325e-330e
pubmed: 22495205
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2018 Oct;42(5):1244-1251
pubmed: 29872906
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997 Nov;100(6):1466-74
pubmed: 9385958
Aesthet Surg J. 2010 Jul-Aug;30(4):579-92
pubmed: 20829256
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Mar;129(3):766-776
pubmed: 22373981
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Aug;128(2):545-555
pubmed: 21788847
J Neurosurg Spine. 2013 Jan;18(1):57-62
pubmed: 23121653
J Cosmet Dermatol. 2009 Jun;8(2):92-7
pubmed: 19527331