Gluteal Augmentation with Polymethyl Methacrylate: A 10-year Cohort Study—Erratum

In the original publication of the article “Gluteal Augmentation with Polymethyl Methacrylate: A 10-year Cohort Study,” by Chacur et al,¹ published as e2193 in the May 2019 edition of PRS Global Open, the title is listed as a cohort study. To clarify the nature of the study methodology (descriptive cohort), a more appropriate title would have been: “Gluteal Augmentation with Polymethyl Methacrylate: A 10-year Retrospective Descriptive Study.”^2,3

Table 3, in the Results section, does not provide direct comparative data between silicone and PMMA; the authors did not study silicone. The phrase about higher complication rates in silicone implants (study by Vergara and Amezcua) was a comment in the Discussion chapter, where they also compared their results with those of Cárdenas-Camarena et al, Oranges et al, and other authors, references in the existing literature. These comments are data from the authors cited in the discussion and are not the authors' own data. The observation regarding PMMA and muscle mass is based on the literature “...permanent volume increase because the nonabsorbable microspheres stimulate the fibroblasts that synthesize and cause collagen deposition around them (Hilinski and Cohen)...” and on long-term clinical impressions. The increase in muscle mass and strength after PMMA injection is due to the distribution of the product between the muscle fibers, along the perimysium, increasing the interstitial space and thus the total muscle volume, a fact confirmed by several studies.^4–9