Buttock augmentation with solid silicone implants

Buttock augmentation with solid silicone implants has become an increasingly popular procedure in the United States, but few outcomes studies have been undertaken to evaluate its safety and efficacy.

The author examines the results of buttock augmentation with solid silicone implants in his private practice.

A retrospective chart review was conducted of 200 consecutive patients who underwent bilateral buttock augmentation with a total of 400 solid silicone implants over an eight-year period from June 2001 through August 2009. Implants were placed in the subfascial position in 154 patients and in the intramuscular position in 46 patients. Most intramuscular implant placements occurred early in the series, before the author refined his technique. Data from all patients were analyzed to determine the rate of complication, need for surgical revision, and aesthetic outcome.

Twenty-six men and 174 women were included in the study. The mean duration of follow-up was three years. The overall reoperation rate for these patients was 13% (n = 26). Seroma formation was the most common complication, occurring in 28% (n = 56) of patients. The infection rate was 6.5% for both subfascial and intramuscular implants (n = 13). The implant infection rate was 3.8% (15 of the 400 implants). Hematoma formation occurred in 2% (n = four) of patients. Wound dehiscence occurred in 1.5% (n = three) of patients. Capsular contracture was noted in 1% (n = two) of patients. Data showed that additional aesthetic procedures at the time of buttock augmentation did not affect the complication rate. In terms of patient satisfaction, patients with intramuscular implants complained more often about a lack of inferior gluteal fullness.

Buttock augmentation with solid silicone implants is a safe and satisfying procedure for both patient and surgeon. The most common complication in this series was seroma formation, which was treated with serial aspiration in most cases. Gluteal implants were successfully placed in either the subfascial or intramuscular position with no significant difference in complication rate, but subfascial implant placement can produce better aesthetic results in patients requiring inferior gluteal fullness.