Does intramuscular gluteal augmentation using implants affect sensitivity in the buttocks?

Serra-Guimarães, Fernando; Barros, Marco Antonio Venturini De; Aboudib, José Horácio; Mota, Denise Salles Coelho da; Leal, Daniel Gouvea; Castro, Cláudio Cardoso de; Nahas, Fábio Xerfan

doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2017.03.001

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies have defined the anatomical bases, surgical technique, methods for implant choice, postoperative complications, assessment of volumetric changes, and dynamometry of the gluteus maximus muscle. [3][4][5][6][7][14][15][16] Now, we seek to understand whether the foundations and bases defined for this procedure are safe in the long term (Fig. 5).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Long-term aesthetic and functional evaluation of intramuscular augmentation gluteoplasty with implants.”

Andrade¹,

Aboudib²,

Serra³

2022

Plastic &Amp; Reconstructive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The insertion of gluteal silicone implants by intramuscular technique leads patients to develop gluteus maximus muscle atrophy. The objective of the present study was to correlate the muscular atrophy of the gluteus maximus proportional to the volume of the silicone implants used. The secondary objectives were to assess volumetry of the gluteus maximus muscle in the late follow-up, to assess the positioning of the implants, and to verify the association between volumetric muscle recovery and practice of physical exercise. Methods: This is a prospective study. The sample was composed of 22 patients who were operated and followed up on an outpatient basis and through gluteus computed tomography at three different moments: preoperatively, 12 months postoperatively, and late postoperatively (≥96 months). Results: Computed tomographic three-dimensional reconstruction and volumetric analysis showed a median atrophy of 6.68% of the gluteus maximus muscle volume in 12 months and 7.47% in the late postoperative period. The correlation between relative volume of the implant and atrophy percentage of the gluteus maximus did not present statistically significant results. There was an association between the practice of physical exercise and volumetry recovery of the gluteus maximus. No patient presented gluteal implant rotation. Conclusions: There is no correlation between proportional volume of implants and atrophy percentage of gluteus maximus muscle, when using implants up to 400 cm3. The gluteus maximus muscle presents atrophy in the late follow-up of augmentation gluteoplasty with implants. There is recovery of muscle volumetry in the patients who practice physical activities. Intramuscular plane implants demonstrated stability in their long-term positioning. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

show abstract