Gluteal Augmentation: A Historical Perspective on Aesthetic Practice.

IF 1.9 Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum Pub Date : 2024-12-12 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1093/asjof/ojae124
Roberto Chacur
{"title":"Gluteal Augmentation: A Historical Perspective on Aesthetic Practice.","authors":"Roberto Chacur","doi":"10.1093/asjof/ojae124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Buttock augmentation has emerged as a significant focus in cosmetic surgery, driven by advancements in techniques and increasing patient interest in body contouring. The evolution of this field, from early pioneering methods to modern, diverse approaches, highlights the need to understand the specific characteristics of each technique and their implications for aesthetic outcomes. The author aims to provide a detailed review of 4 major buttock augmentation techniques: gluteal implants, Brazilian butt lift (BBL), intramuscular polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), and deep subcutaneous hyaluronic acid fillers. The goal is to assess the benefits and limitations of each method, helping practitioners and patients make informed decisions tailored to their preferences and needs. A comprehensive literature review was conducted, incorporating clinical studies, case reports, and expert opinions on these 4 techniques. Evaluation criteria included effectiveness, safety, recovery time, and patient satisfaction. Data were synthesized to provide a comparative analysis of each method. Gluteal implants offer predictable volume but involve surgical risks and lengthy recovery. The BBL, using autologous fat, delivers natural results and body contouring benefits but carries risks such as fat embolism and fat reabsorption. Intramuscular PMMA fillers provide permanent results with minimally invasive application but are challenging to remove. Hyaluronic acid fillers are reversible and minimally invasive but require periodic maintenance and may present risks like material migration. In this review, the author highlights the advantages and drawbacks of each technique, emphasizing individualized assessments and practitioner expertise. By outlining these methods, the author supports informed decision making in buttock augmentation.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence 5 therapeutic: </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":72118,"journal":{"name":"Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum","volume":"7 ","pages":"ojae124"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11780847/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/asjof/ojae124","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Buttock augmentation has emerged as a significant focus in cosmetic surgery, driven by advancements in techniques and increasing patient interest in body contouring. The evolution of this field, from early pioneering methods to modern, diverse approaches, highlights the need to understand the specific characteristics of each technique and their implications for aesthetic outcomes. The author aims to provide a detailed review of 4 major buttock augmentation techniques: gluteal implants, Brazilian butt lift (BBL), intramuscular polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), and deep subcutaneous hyaluronic acid fillers. The goal is to assess the benefits and limitations of each method, helping practitioners and patients make informed decisions tailored to their preferences and needs. A comprehensive literature review was conducted, incorporating clinical studies, case reports, and expert opinions on these 4 techniques. Evaluation criteria included effectiveness, safety, recovery time, and patient satisfaction. Data were synthesized to provide a comparative analysis of each method. Gluteal implants offer predictable volume but involve surgical risks and lengthy recovery. The BBL, using autologous fat, delivers natural results and body contouring benefits but carries risks such as fat embolism and fat reabsorption. Intramuscular PMMA fillers provide permanent results with minimally invasive application but are challenging to remove. Hyaluronic acid fillers are reversible and minimally invasive but require periodic maintenance and may present risks like material migration. In this review, the author highlights the advantages and drawbacks of each technique, emphasizing individualized assessments and practitioner expertise. By outlining these methods, the author supports informed decision making in buttock augmentation.

Level of evidence 5 therapeutic:

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
臀部增大:审美实践的历史视角。
由于技术的进步和患者对身体轮廓的兴趣增加,臀部增大已经成为整容手术的一个重要焦点。这个领域的演变,从早期的开创性方法到现代的,多样化的方法,突出了需要了解每种技术的具体特征及其对美学结果的影响。作者旨在提供4种主要的丰臀技术的详细综述:臀部植入物,巴西臀部提升(BBL),肌内聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯(PMMA)和深层皮下透明质酸填充剂。目的是评估每种方法的优点和局限性,帮助医生和患者根据自己的喜好和需求做出明智的决定。我们对这4种技术进行了全面的文献综述,包括临床研究、病例报告和专家意见。评价标准包括有效性、安全性、恢复时间和患者满意度。综合数据,对每种方法进行比较分析。臀植入物提供可预测的体积,但涉及手术风险和漫长的恢复时间。使用自体脂肪的BBL具有自然效果和塑形效果,但也存在脂肪栓塞和脂肪重吸收等风险。肌内PMMA填充物具有微创应用的永久性效果,但难以去除。透明质酸填充剂是可逆的、微创的,但需要定期维护,并可能存在物质迁移等风险。在这篇综述中,作者强调了每种技术的优点和缺点,强调个性化评估和从业者的专业知识。通过概述这些方法,作者支持在丰臀知情的决策。证据等级为5,具有治疗作用:
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Wound Coverage, Adjuvant Treatments, and Surgical Outcomes for Major Keloid Scars: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. A Long-Acting Combination Nerve Block in Rhinoplasty to Minimize Postoperative Opioid Use. Response by Hadid et al to "Hemostatic Nets in Facelifts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Postoperative Complications and Patient Outcomes" by Caimi et al. Mapping the UK Aesthetic Medicine Industry: Practitioner Profiles, Pricing, and Socioeconomic Gradients in Botulinum Toxin Practice. The Association Between Obesity, Obstructive Sleep Apnea, and Postoperative Complications in Breast Reduction Patients: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1