Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp 872–877 | Cite as

Gluteal Augmentation with Silicone Implants: A New Proposal for Intramuscular Dissection

  • Guilherme Augusto Andrade
  • Pedro Soler ColtroEmail author
  • André Andó
  • Renan Victor Lima
  • Bruno Francisco Müller Neto
  • Vinicius Zolezi Silva
  • Jayme Adriano Farina Junior
Original Article Body Contouring



Gluteoplasty has gained notoriety over the last decades, which has motivated the development of various surgical techniques. Nevertheless, the fear of dissection of the intramuscular plane without direct visualization may inhibit learning and development of gluteal augmentation with implants. Moreover, literature detailing the technical steps of intramuscular dissection for the construction of the implant pocket is scarce. This study presents a new approach to intramuscular dissection for gluteal augmentation with silicone implants, a variation of the conventional surgical technique.


We performed a retrospective analysis of a series of 12 female patients submitted to a variation of the intramuscular dissection technique for gluteal augmentation with silicone implants. Data from patients, implants, follow-up time, postoperative complications, and the degree of patient satisfaction were obtained. This technique follows the principle of alternating spatulas to perform the blunt dissection of the implant pocket.


In this series, the proposed technique is controlled and safe for intramuscular dissection, which can be used for both experienced and training surgeons. This technique is based on well-known anatomical points and references. We observed that the implant was well positioned and covered, the patients were satisfied with the result, and the number of complications was low.


This variation of the intramuscular dissection technique for gluteal augmentation with silicone implants provides an easily reproducible and safe procedure that involves well-controlled technical steps, especially during dissection of the intramuscular pocket. In this series of patients, training surgeons learned faster, results were satisfactory, and the number of complications was low.

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


Buttocks Prosthesis implantation Surgical procedures, operative 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MOV 71971 kb)


  1. 1.
    De La Penã J, Rubio OV, Cano JP, Cedillo MC, Garcés MT (2006) History of gluteal augmentation. Clin Plast Surg 33:307–319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    González-Ulloa M (1991) Gluteoplasty: a ten-year report. Aesthet Plast Surg 15:85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Robles JM, Tagllaperta JC, Grandl YMA (1984) Augmentation gluteoplasty: submuscular implant. Cir Plast Ibero-latinoam 10:365–375Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vergara R, Marcos M (1996) Intramuscular gluteal implants. Aesthet Plast Surg 20:259–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vergara R, Amezcua H (2003) Intramuscular gluteal implants: 15 years’ experience. Aesthet Surg J 23:86–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De La Pena JA, Monjadin LH, Gamboa LF (2000) Augmentation gluteoplasty: anatomical and clinical considerations. Plast Cosmet Surg 17:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gonzalez R (2004) Augmentation gluteoplasty: the XYZ method. Aesthet Plast Surg 28:417–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Serra F, Aboudib JH, Cedrola JP, de Castro CC (2010) Gluteoplasty: anatomic basis and technique. Aesthet Surg J 30:579–592CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gonzalez R (2010) Gluteal implants: the “XYZ” intramuscular method. Aesthet Surg J 30:256–264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Serra F, Aboudib JH, Marques RG (2012) Reducing wound complications in gluteal augmentation surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 130:706e–713eCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cuenca-Guerra R, Lugo-Beltran I (2006) Beautiful buttocks: characteristics and surgical techniques. Clin Plast Surg 33:321–332CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mendieta CG (2006) Classification system for gluteal evaluation. Clin Plast Surg 33:333–346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Daramola OO, Rhee JS (2011) Rating evidence in medical literature. Virtual Mentor 13:46–51CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guilherme Augusto Andrade
    • 1
  • Pedro Soler Coltro
    • 1
    Email author
  • André Andó
    • 1
  • Renan Victor Lima
    • 1
  • Bruno Francisco Müller Neto
    • 1
  • Vinicius Zolezi Silva
    • 1
  • Jayme Adriano Farina Junior
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Plastic Surgery, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão PretoUniversidade de São PauloMonte Alegre, Ribeirão PretoBrazil

Personalised recommendations