Journal Logo

Letters

Body Contouring

Oranges, Carlo M. M.D.; Haug, Martin M.D.; Schaefer, Dirk J. M.D.

Author Information
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: November 2016 - Volume 138 - Issue 5 - p 944e-945e
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002724
  • Free

Sir:

We read with extreme interest the CME article on body contouring by Almutairi et al. published in the March of 2016 issue of the Journal.1 We applaud this work from Dr. Rubin’s group who, during the past decades, widely expanded our knowledge on this topic with fundamental contributions to the literature, describing new procedures and investigating relevant aspects. This last review clearly discusses essential principles of patient selection and safety, anatomical concepts, staging, and combining techniques1; this will certainly guide our future daily practice.

Significantly, the authors observe that body contouring surgery is evolving in many ways to meet the needs of our patients, with some procedures showing a tremendous increase in popularity. In this regard, we believe that special attention needs to be given to buttock augmentation, which is a very hot topic. Indeed, despite a 58 percent increase in the number of buttock augmentation operations performed in the United States in 2013 and 20,000 Americans undergoing this procedure in 2015,2,3 surprisingly, there is a paucity of data to guide treatment paradigms. Although many studies have been published in recent decades, including case reports, retrospective and prospective case series, and multicenter reviews, there has been no study of the overall complications or satisfaction rates associated with the broad spectrum of techniques.

Summarizing the data available from the literature, five buttock augmentation techniques can be identified: gluteal augmentation with implants, autologous fat or dermal fat grafting, local tissue rearrangement or local flaps, hyaluronic acid gel injection, and silicone injection. According to the U.S. cosmetic surgery statistics, gluteal augmentation with implants and autologous fat grafting are the most commonly used techniques.2,3

Gluteal augmentation with implants has been described with many procedural variations, especially with regard to dissection plane and incisional access; no standardization or outcomes comparison are currently available. However, in their multicenter survey review of 2226 patients undergoing buttock augmentation with silicone implants, Mofid et al. reported that 68.4 percent of surgeons favored the intramuscular plane of dissection over the subfascial plane, whereas no preference was observed between a single midline intergluteal incision and two parallel incisions within the gluteal cleft.4 The total number of complications reported was 38.1 percent; wound dehiscence was determined to be the most common complication (7.9 percent). Thus, many surgeons who prefer to place two separated incisions in the gluteal cleft cite the attempt to reduce wound dehiscence.

Gluteoplasty with autologous fat tissue is certainly associated with a lower rate of complications. A recent study by Rosique et al. on 106 consecutive cases emphasized the advantages of this technique, described as simple and inexpensive, with minimal morbidity (4.7 percent rate of seroma in the donor area) and excellent results in terms of patient satisfaction (97.1 percent).5 However, the unpredictability of volume maintenance remains the main concern related to this promising procedure. In this regard, a study by de Pedroza on 556 patients reported a long-term fat graft survival varying approximately between 50 and 75 percent.6 Further prospective studies with preoperative randomization of patients are required to better compare different techniques and establish best practices.

DISCLOSURE

The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this communication.

Carlo M. Oranges, M.D.
Martin Haug, M.D.
Dirk J. Schaefer, M.D.
Department of Plastic, Reconstructive,
Aesthetic, and Hand Surgery
Basel University Hospital
Basel, Switzerland

REFERENCES

1. Almutairi K, Gusenoff JA, Rubin JP. Body contouring. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:586e602e.
2. American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. Labiaplasty and buttock augmentation show marked increase in popularity. Available at: http://www.surgery.org/media/news-releases/labiaplasty-and-buttock-augmentation-show-marked-increase-in-popularity. Accessed March 1, 2016.
3. American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. Initial data from the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery points to 20% increase in procedures in 2015. Available at: http://www.surgery.org/media/news-releases/initial-data-from-the-american-society-for-aesthetic-plastic-surgery-points-to-20percent-increase-in-procedu. Accessed March 1, 2016.
4. Mofid MM, Gonzalez R, de la Peña JA, Mendieta CG, Senderoff DM, Jorjani S. Buttock augmentation with silicone implants: A multicenter survey review of 2226 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:897901.
5. Rosique RG, Rosique MJ, De Moraes CG. Gluteoplasty with autologous fat tissue: Experience with 106 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:13811389.
6. de Pedroza LV. Fat transplantation to the buttocks and legs for aesthetic enhancement or correction of deformities: Long-term results of large volumes of fat transplant. Dermatol Surg. 2000;26:11451149.

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.

Copyright © 2016 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons