ReviewJPRAS open2026
Postoperative infections following silicone implant-based gluteal augmentation.
Review in JPRAS open, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Gluteal augmentation with silicone implants is increasingly performed worldwide, but postoperative infection remains one of the most relevant complications. This complication can significantly affect both the survival of the implants and the overall outcomes for patients. However, evidence regarding incidence, microbiology, risk factors, and management remains heterogeneous. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and Latin American and Caribbean Literature in Health Sciences (LILACS) database were searched for studies reporting infectious complications following aesthetic gluteal augmentation with silicone implants. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach across the four prespecified outcome domains. Given clinical and methodological heterogeneity, data were synthesized narratively. Results: Twenty-five studies, including 4937 patients, were included. Most studies were retrospective case series or case reports, with limited comparative evidence. Infection rates could not be reliably estimated because of heterogeneous definitions, incomplete reporting, and variable follow-up. Only a small number of studies provided microbiological findings, with Conclusions: While postoperative infections in gluteal implant augmentation seem to be rare, they can lead to serious complications. However, the current evidence is limited due to methodological heterogeneity and inconsistent reporting. Prospective comparative studies using standardized definitions and detailed microbiological and clinical data are required to better guide prevention and management.
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.