Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 30–37 | Cite as

Profile of Patients Undergoing Gluteoplasty

  • Jose Horacio Aboudib
  • Fernando Serra-GuimarãesEmail author
  • Francisco J. B. Sampaio
Original Article Aesthetic



Gluteal augmentation surgery has grown by 42 % per year; however, the epidemiological profile of patients who seek this treatment has never been studied.


To establish the epidemiological profile of patients who have undergone gluteoplasty surgery, evaluating their level of satisfaction and the social impact caused by the surgery.


Fifty patients, with ages ranging from 23 to 57 years replied to a specific questionnaire and the esthetic result of the surgery was evaluated. Thirty-seven patients were analyzed prospectively, using CT scans and gluteal reconstruction. The esthetic result was evaluated by eight plastic surgeon specialists from SBCP.


About satisfaction and quality of life, 98 % of the patients demonstrated improvement in some aspect of life. Analysis of the marital status of patients showed that 24 % of them have changed it. Therefore, all cases showed positive correlations between implant size and monthly income, age and satisfaction of patients. There has also been a positive correlation between implant size and recovery time. There was no statistically significant correlation between the esthetic result and the implant volume or the anthropometric measurements.


The epidemiological profile of patients undergoing gluteoplasty augmentation with implants is predominantly white skin, 36 years old, unrelated to the occupation or socioeconomic status. Augmentation gluteoplasty with implants is a surgery with a high level of satisfaction to patients, improving life in many aspects but, mainly, affectively. Its outcome produces a natural look and is hardly noticed by others.

Level of Evidence V

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


Gluteoplasty Gluteal Implants Prosthesis 



There was no external funding for this study. The authors have no financial interest or commercial association with any of the subject matter or products mentioned in this article

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that no competing financial interests exist with regard to the present article.


  1. 1.
    Morimoto N, Zollikofer CP, de Leon MSP (2012) Shared human-chimpanzee pattern of perinatal femoral shaft morphology and its implications for the evolution of hominin locomotor adaptations. PLoS One 7(7):e41980PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mendieta CG (2006) Classification system for gluteal evaluation. Clin Plast Surg 33(3):333–346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Serra F, Aboudib JH, Marques RG (2013) Intramuscular technique for gluteal augmentation: determination and quantification of muscle atrophy and implant position by computed tomographic scan. Plast Reconstr Surg 131(2):253e–259eCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Azevedo DMGP, Pereira J, Amoedo TB, Kuroyanagi FM, Cotes EFM, Pinto EBS, Saldanha OR (2012) Augmentation gluteoplasty: experience at Dr. Ewaldo Bolivar de Souza Pinto Plastic Surgery Service. Braz J Plast Surg 27(1):87–92Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Serra F, Aboudib JH, Marques RG (2012) Reducing wound complications in gluteal augmentation surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 130(5):706e–713eCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bartels RJ, O’Malley JE, Douglas WM, Wilson RG (1969) Unusual use of the Cronin breast prothesis. Plast Reconstr Surg 44:500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cocke W, Ricketson G (1973) Gluteal augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 52(1):93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gluteoplasty Ulloa G (1991) A ten-year report. Aesthet Plast Surg 15:85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aboudib JH, Serra F, de Castro CC (2012) Gluteal augmentation: technique, indications, and implant selection. Plast Reconstr Surg 130(4):933–935CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Serra F, Aboudib JH, Cedrola JP, de Castro CC (2010) Gluteoplasty: anatomic basis and technique. Aesthetic Surg J 30(4):579–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vergara R, Marcos M (1996) Intramuscular gluteal implants. Aesthet   Plast Surg 20:259–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hultman CS, Wu C, Bentz ML, Redett RJ, Shack RB, David LR, Taub PJ, Janis JE (2015) Identification of best practices for resident aesthetic clinics in plastic surgery training: the ACAPS National Survey. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 3(3):e370PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chang JB, Woo SL, Cederna PS (2015) Worth the “likes”? the use of facebook among plastic surgeons and its perceived impact. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(5):909e–918eCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Paik AM, Daniali LN, Lee ES, Hsia HC (2015) Local anesthetic use in tumescent liposuction: an American Society of Plastic Surgeons survey. Ann Plast Surg 74(2):145–151CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sisco M, Johnson DB, Wang C, Rasinski K, Rundell VL, Yao KA (2015) The quality-of-life benefits of breast reconstruction do not diminish with age. J Surg Oncol 111(6):663–668CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hodgins N, Hoo C, McGee P, Hill C (2015) A survey of assessment and management of velopharyngeal incompetence (VPI) in the UK and Ireland. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 68(4):485–491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Patel A, Clark SR, Schiffmiller M, Schoenberg C, Tewfik G (2015) A survey of practice patterns in the use of laryngeal mask by pediatric anesthesiologists. Paediatr Anaesth 25(11):1127–1131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roberts TL, Weinfeld AB, Bruner TW, Nguyen K (2006) “Universal” and ethnic ideals of beautiful buttocks are best obtained by autologous micro fat grafting and liposuction. Clin Plast Surg 33(3):371–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ramos SL, Hochman B, Gomes HC et al (2011) Effect of nasal deviation on quality of life. Plast Reconstr Surg 128(1):132–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brito MJ, Nahas FX, Barbosa MV et al (2010) Abdominoplasty and its effect on body image, self-esteem, and mental health. Ann Plast Surg 65(1):5–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Papadopulos NA, Staffler V, Mirceva V et al (2012) Does abdominoplasty have a positive influence on quality of life, self-esteem, and emotional stability? Plast Reconstr Surg 129(6):957e–962eCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Swanson E (2013) Prospective outcome study of 225 cases of breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 131(5):1158–1166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saariniemi KM, Helle MH, Salmi AM, Peltoniemi HH, Charpentier P, Kuokkanen HO (2012) The effects of aesthetic breast augmentation on quality of life, psychological distress, and eating disorder symptoms: a prospective study. Aesthet Plast Surg 36(5):1090–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McCarthy CM, Cano SJ, Klassen AF et al (2012) The magnitude of effect of cosmetic breast augmentation on patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life. Plast Reconstr Surg 130(1):218–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mendieta CG (2006) Intramuscular gluteal augmentation technique. Clin Plast Surg 33(3):423–434CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gonzalez R (2004) Augmentation Gluteoplasty: the XYZ Method. Aesthet Plast Surg 28:417–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tebbetts JB (2013) A process for quantifying aesthetic and functional breast surgery: I. Quantifying optimal nipple position and vertical and horizontal skin excess for mastopexy and breast reduction. Plast Reconstr Surg 132(1):65–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tebbetts JB, Adams WP (2006) Five critical decisions in breast augmentation using five measurements in 5 min: the high five decision support process. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(7 Suppl):35S–45SCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Iglesias-Linares A, Yáñez-Vico RM, Moreno-Manteca B, Moreno-Fernández AM, Mendoza-Mendoza A et al (2011) Common standards in facial esthetics: craniofacial analysis of most attractive black and white subjects according to People magazine during previous 10 years. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69(6):e216–e224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Swanson E (2013) Prospective outcome study of 225 cases of breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 131(5):1158–1166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kalaaji A, Bjertness CB, Nordahl C, Olafsen K (2013) Survey of breast implant patients: characteristics, depression rate, and quality of life. Aesthet Surg J 33(2):252–257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jose Horacio Aboudib
    • 1
  • Fernando Serra-Guimarães
    • 2
    Email author
  • Francisco J. B. Sampaio
    • 3
  1. 1.Pedro Ernesto University HospitalRio de Janeiro State UniversityRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Pedro Ernesto University HospitalRio de Janeiro State UniversityRio de JaneiroBrazil
  3. 3.Urogenital Research UnitState University of Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)Rio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations