2018
DOI: 10.1097/prs.0000000000004407
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Secondary Gluteal Augmentation: Surgical Technique and Outcomes

Abstract: Secondary gluteal augmentation can be successfully performed using the hybrid technique if the gluteus maximus is accurately dissected, the capsules are appropriately managed, and infection is rigidly controlled.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…10,11 It has been our default approach for many years, but implant visibility can occur in very thin, physically active patients. 12 Upper pole submuscular placement places the implant completely under the gluteus maximus and medius muscles. 13 In the lower half, location of implants between the gluteus maximus muscle is optimum to get the desired point of maximum projection at the level of the pubic tubercle.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…10,11 It has been our default approach for many years, but implant visibility can occur in very thin, physically active patients. 12 Upper pole submuscular placement places the implant completely under the gluteus maximus and medius muscles. 13 In the lower half, location of implants between the gluteus maximus muscle is optimum to get the desired point of maximum projection at the level of the pubic tubercle.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Complications of gluteal implant surgery (e.g., seroma, wound dehiscence, implant extrusion, implant visibility and palpability) can be greatly reduced or prevented with submuscular placement of the implant. The subfascial pocket is burdened with the highest rate of complications, 14,15 and subfascial pocket dissection carries the disadvantages of implant palpability, visibility, implant dislocation, and infragluteal fold displacement 16 due to subcutaneous fat lamination and skin loosening, which leads to poor covering of the implant. Intramuscular positioning provides better implant concealing but presents a moderate percentage of dislocation, muscle atrophy, and moving of the implant, as muscle contraction may move the implant toward the midline 6,17 ; it is also difficult to perform.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%