ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Gluteal Augmentation Using Subfascial Silicone Implants and Selective Autologous Fat Grafting.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe demand for gluteal augmentation has risen significantly over the past decade. While both implants and autologous fat grafting are commonly used, each technique carries limitations. This study evaluates our outcomes following subfascial gluteal augmentation with silicone implants, with or without adjunctive autologous fat grafting.
methodsThis single-centre, retrospective study reviewed 30 patients (23 women and 7 men) who underwent subfascial gluteal augmentation with firm cohesive silicone gel implants between 2023 and 2024. Eleven patients underwent simultaneous autologous fat grafting. Subjective and objective outcomes were assessed using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), Objective Buttocks Assessment Scale (OBAS), and the Gluteal Ptosis Classification Scale. Complications and satisfaction scores were recorded for up to 1 year (range 2-52 weeks, median 24).
resultsImplant volumes ranged from 125 to 715 cc (mean 350 cc females and 283 cc males). About 90% of patients achieved a GAIS score of ≤2, indicating significant aesthetic improvement. OBAS scores improved by an average of 5 points, reflecting enhanced gluteal volume, superior pole projection, and improved waist-to-hip ratios. Three implant-related complications were recorded: implant malrotation (managed non-surgically), infection, and extrusion-both requiring explantation. No cases of capsular contracture, animation deformity, sensorimotor nerve injury, or haematoma were observed. Judicious use of autologous fat grafting was beneficial in patients with thin, soft tissue envelopes and/or pre-existing contour irregularities, including cellulite or contour deformities.
conclusionsSubfascial silicone gluteal implant placement with selective autologous fat grafting appears to be a safe and effective technique for gluteal enhancement. Acceptable complication rates with reasonable patient satisfaction and acceptable aesthetic results may be obtained. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: The journal asks authors to assign a level of evidence to each article. For a complete description of Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, see the Table of Contents or the online Instructions for Authors at www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
41491319What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.