Implant-Based Gluteal Augmentation: Comparing Complications Between Single- and Double-Incision Techniques.

BACKGROUND

Gluteal implants are gaining popularity as an alternative to fat grafting for gluteal augmentation. This study aims to compare complication rates between single- and double-incision techniques for implant placement in gluteal augmentation from a single surgeon's experience.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a single surgeon's implant-based gluteal augmentations was conducted between October 2018 and August 2022. Consecutive patient cases were reviewed at the beginning and end of the designated period to compare both incision techniques after switching from the single- to double-incision technique in September 2020. Demographics and postoperative complications were compared. Statistical comparisons were made using the independent sample t-test for quantitative variables and the Fisher's exact test for categorical variables.

RESULTS

The study included 134 single-incision patients (247 implants) and 47 double-incision patients (91 implants). Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics between the two groups were similar. Overall complication rate per implant was higher in the single-incision group (16.6% vs. 6.6%, p = 0.02). The most common complication per implant was delayed wound healing (single incision: 9.7%, double incision: 5.5%). The odds ratio of developing at least one complication in the double compared to the single-incision group was 0.44 (95% CI: 0.19, 0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

The double incision technique demonstrates a lower complication rate than the single-incision technique for implant-based gluteal augmentation. The most common complication in both groups was delayed wound healing which responded in most patients to conservative wound care. These results support using the double-incision technique for implant-based gluteal augmentation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .