ArticleThe American journal of case reports2026
Intraoperative Discovery of Permanent Gluteal Filler During Implant Revision: A Case Report on Surgical Adaptation and Risk Awareness.
Article in The American journal of case reports, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Gluteal augmentation has gained significant popularity worldwide, with a parallel increase in complications related to unregulated procedures. The use of permanent fillers by non-medical personnel poses serious risks and can complicate future surgical interventions. CASE REPORT We report the case of a 29-year-old woman seeking revision of a prior gluteal augmentation performed abroad with subcutaneous silicone implants. The patient desired greater upper-pole projection and improved contour. During liposuction of the lower back, an unexpected gel-like material was encountered throughout the subcutaneous tissue of the lower back, hips, and infra-gluteal fold, consistent with previously injected permanent filler. The procedure was immediately adapted: fat grafting was abandoned due to the risk of infection and poor graft viability, and thorough manual extraction and irrigation were performed. Implant exchange was completed successfully, with new biconvex silicone implants placed in intramuscular pockets. The postoperative course was uneventful, and at 3-month follow-up, the patient demonstrated improved contour and was satisfied with the outcome. CONCLUSIONS This case illustrates the need for accurate preoperative evaluation and the ability to adapt intraoperatively in response to unsafe prior procedures. It also highlights the growing concern over illegal filler use and reinforces the importance of regulation, patient education, and adherence to evidence-based surgical practices to ensure safety and satisfactory outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.