Lipofilling or silicone implants: composite correction of lower legs

Objective. To compare silicone implants and lipofilling, as well as their combination regarding stable long-term results. Material and methods. Silicone implants alone were used in 509 patients (mean implant volume 132±26 ml). Maximum soft tissue augmentation by 1.3±0.3 cm was obtained in the middle third of the leg. In the upper third, increment was 0.4±0.4 cm. After 6 months, width of the leg in the middle third additionally increased by 0.3±0.2 cm. Implant contouring requiring correction was observed in 6 (1.2%) pa-tients. Isolated lipofilling of medial surface of the lower leg was performed in 45 patients (mean volume 76±22 ml on each side). Maximum postoperative soft tissue augmentation by 1.2±0.4 cm was observed in the upper third of the lower leg (popliteal depression area). In the middle third, increment was 1.1±0.3 cm. After 6 months, middle third of the leg decreased by 0.7±0.3 cm. At the level of popliteal depression, width decreased by 0.1±0.2 cm. Nine (20%) patients experienced transient focal inflammation at injection sites. Combination of silicone implants and lipofilling was performed in 144 patients (mean implant volume 88±20 ml, fatty tissue volume 38±13 ml on each side). Lipofilling was used mainly in the area of popliteal depression. Soft tissue augmentation at the level of popliteal depression was 1.2±0.5 cm, in the middle third — 1.2±0.3 cm. After 6 months, width of the upper third of the leg decreased by 0.1±0.2 mm. In the middle third, soft tissue augmentation was 0.2±0.1 mm. Conclusion. We recommend a combination of corrective methods to improve the long-term results of lower leg contouring. © 2022, Media Sphera Publishing Group. All rights reserved.