Share this article on:

Reply: Redefining the Ideal Buttocks: A Population Analysis

Wong, Wendy M.D.; Motakef, Saba M.D.; Gupta, Subhas M.D., Ph.D.

Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery: April 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 4 - p 1023e–1024e
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003200
Letters

Gallery Plastic Surgery

Monterey, Calif.

Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, Calif.

Correspondence to Dr. Wong, Gallery Plastic Surgery, 584 Munras Avenue Monterey, Calif. 93940, galleryplasticsurgery@gmail.com

Back to Top | Article Outline

Sir:

In our original work, “Redefining the Ideal Buttocks: A Population Analysis,” buttock images of varying proportions were created, and both female and male population preferences on buttock aesthetic proportions were surveyed.1 This study was based in the United States, which resulted in a highly disproportionate number of Caucasian respondents in comparison with those of other ethnicities. Future studies recruiting the assistance of international plastic surgery experts to broaden the respondent demographics and obtain more culture-specific findings will help in evaluating any differences in preferences between different ethnicities. This can guide the planning process for gluteoplasty procedures, but it is important to keep cultural and geographic preferences in mind in addition to patient preferences when evaluating a patient for buttock enhancement. For example, a patient of Chinese descent living in the United States may have a Caucasian-influenced preference, in contrast to someone living in China.

With exposure to social media unifying different countries and potentially diminishing any strong cultural preferences, we hypothesize that there would be a global preference for larger, more voluptuous contour proportions throughout all ethnicities. Serial surveys conducted every decade may yield interesting results to see whether there is linear change in these preferences as well. Our data demonstrate an evolution from the previously described aesthetic ideal of a 0.70 waist-to-hip ratio, and this archetype will likely change in the coming years. Furthermore, future studies analyzing patient-reported outcomes for different gluteoplasty procedures can elucidate whether there is a correlation with aesthetic ideals and can better assay long-term outcomes and satisfaction rates.

As aesthetic paradigms evolve and shift quite dramatically over time, it is important to consider the long-term effects of the surgical techniques we choose on our patients. Long-term effects of gravity on tissue, age-related changes, and consideration of the need for future operations are all important factors in decision-making. Patient safety is undoubtedly a plastic surgeon’s number one priority. We must keep in mind that despite our patient’s preferences and ideals of beauty, it is our duty to only offer surgical procedures that benefit the patient’s quality of life and heavily outweigh the potential risk profile.

Back to Top | Article Outline

DISCLOSURE

The authors have no financial conflicts to disclose. There was no funding for this work.

Wendy Wong, M.D.

Gallery Plastic Surgery

Monterey, Calif.

Saba Motakef, M.D.

Subhas Gupta, M.D., Ph.D.

Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Loma Linda University Medical Center

Loma Linda, Calif.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCE

1. Wong WW, Motakef S, Lin Y, Gupta SCRedefining the ideal buttocks: A population analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:1739–1747.
Back to Top | Article Outline

GUIDELINES

Letters to the Editor, discussing material recently published in the Journal, are welcome. They will have the best chance of acceptance if they are received within 8 weeks of an article’s publication. Letters to the Editor may be published with a response from the authors of the article being discussed. Discussions beyond the initial letter and response will not be published. Letters submitted pertaining to published Discussions of articles will not be printed. Letters to the Editor are not usually peer reviewed, but the Journal may invite replies from the authors of the original publication. All Letters are published at the discretion of the Editor.

Letters submitted should pose a specific question that clarifies a point that either was not made in the article or was unclear, and therefore a response from the corresponding author of the article is requested.

Authors will be listed in the order in which they appear in the submission. Letters should be submitted electronically via PRS’ enkwell, at www.editorialmanager.com/prs/.

We reserve the right to edit Letters to meet requirements of space and format. Any financial interests relevant to the content of the correspondence must be disclosed. Submission of a Letter constitutes permission for the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and its licensees and asignees to publish it in the Journal and in any other form or medium.

The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in the Letters to the Editor represent the personal opinions of the individual writers and not those of the publisher, the Editorial Board, or the sponsors of the Journal. Any stated views, opinions, and conclusions do not reflect the policy of any of the sponsoring organizations or of the institutions with which the writer is affiliated, and the publisher, the Editorial Board, and the sponsoring organizations assume no responsibility for the content of such correspondence.

The Journal requests that individuals submit no more than five (5) letters to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in a calendar year.

©2017American Society of Plastic Surgeons