Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
This pre-market, interventional, single-arm study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LinneaSafe 30% polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) for gluteal augmentation. The study will include 119 patients, with a total recruitment of 137 to account for a 15% drop-out rate. Eligible participants are men and women over 18 years old who express interest and are deemed suitable for the procedure. The primary safety outcome is the incidence of adverse events, while the primary efficacy outcome is patient satisfaction.
This pre-market, interventional, single-arm study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LinneaSafe 30% polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) for gluteal augmentation. The study will include 119 patients, with a total recruitment of 137 to account for a 15% drop-out rate. Eligible participants are men and women over 18 years old who express interest and are deemed suitable for the procedure. The primary safety outcome is the incidence of adverse events, while the primary efficacy outcome is patient satisfaction.
Patient recruitment will be conducted via social media. After signing the consent form, participants will undergo screening, including laboratory tests, gluteal ultrasound, and bioimpedance. The procedure (T0) involves baseline photos, gluteal measurements, and intramuscular PMMA augmentation (maximum 300 mL), followed by an evaluation of patient and clinician satisfaction. Follow-ups include online assessments at T1 week and T3 months to monitor adverse events. At T6 months, patients will undergo clinical evaluation, laboratory tests, photos, and satisfaction assessments, with the possibility of a retouch (up to 120 mL) if necessary, followed by an additional online check-up after one week. The final evaluation at T12 months will include photos, gluteal measurements, laboratory tests, ultrasound, bioimpedance, and an overall assessment of safety and efficacy.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| PMMA | Experimental | Gluteal Augmentation with Linnea Safe (PMMA). |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PMMA | Device | Safety and efficacy evaluation of PMMA LinneaSafe 30% use for gluteal augmentation. Linnea Safe is a water-based gel containing Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) in concentrations of 2%, 10% or 30%. LInnea Safe is indicated for facial and body volumetric correction in cases of lipodystrophy due to the use of antiretrovirals in HIV-positive patients. It is also indicated for facial volumetric correction, and can be used in nasolabial folds, glabellar lines, corners of the mouth, upper lip lines, chin lines/chin lines, in the malar region, in acne scars, on the nose, to increase lips and facial contour. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Adverse Events | Expected events will be classified as adverse events when they persist for more than two weeks, and must be reported throughout the study. Adverse events not previously identified will also be monitored at all visits. | From enrollment to the end of treatment at 12 months |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Patient Satisfaction | Patient and physician satisfaction will be evaluated using the Portuguese version of the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, assigning values according to the following parameters: Very much improved (5): excellent cosmetic result after the procedure. Much improved (4): marked improvement in the appearance of the initial condition, but not completely optimal for the patient. Improved (3): obvious improvement in the appearance of the initial condition. No change (2): appearance is essentially the same as the original condition. Worse (1): appearance is worse than the original condition. The satisfaction assessment will be conducted at the T6 and T12 visits. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lebon Farma | Contact | +55 (51) 3250-8256 | juliano.alves@lebonfarma.com.br | |
| Vanessa Ribas | Contact | vanessa.ribas@lebonfarma.com.br |
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Fernanda Bortolozo | Principal Investigator |
Not provided
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 14648064 | Background | Lemperle G, Morhenn V, Charrier U. Human histology and persistence of various injectable filler substances for soft tissue augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2003 Sep-Oct;27(5):354-66; discussion 367. doi: 10.1007/s00266-003-3022-1. Epub 2003 Dec 4. | |
| 31333932 | Background | Chacur R, Sampaio Menezes H, Maria Bordin da Silva Chacur N, Dias Alves D, Cadore Mafaldo R, Dias Gomes L, Dos Santos Barreto G. Gluteal Augmentation with Polymethyl Methacrylate: A 10-year Cohort Study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019 May 31;7(5):e2193. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002193. eCollection 2019 May. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
| From enrollment to the end of treatment at 12 months |
| 24855130 | Background | Serra MS, Goncalves LZ, Ramos-e-Silva M. Soft tissue augmentation with PMMA-microspheres for the treatment of HIV-associated buttock lipodystrophy. Int J STD AIDS. 2015 Mar;26(4):279-84. doi: 10.1177/0956462414536878. Epub 2014 May 22. |
| 35999464 | Background | Atiyeh B, Ghieh F, Oneisi A. Safety and Efficiency of Minimally Invasive Buttock Augmentation: A Review. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2023 Feb;47(1):245-259. doi: 10.1007/s00266-022-03049-5. Epub 2022 Aug 23. |
| 36284000 | Background | Dai Y, Chen Y, Hu Y, Zhang L. Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives of Buttock Augmentation: A Bibliometric Analysis from 1999 to 2021. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2023 Jun;47(3):1091-1103. doi: 10.1007/s00266-022-03140-x. Epub 2022 Oct 25. |
| 22437333 | Background | de Melo Carpaneda E, Carpaneda CA. Adverse results with PMMA fillers. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2012 Aug;36(4):955-63. doi: 10.1007/s00266-012-9871-8. Epub 2012 Mar 22. |
| 30676441 | Background | Ridwan-Pramana A, Idema S, Te Slaa S, Verver F, Wolff J, Forouzanfar T, Peerdeman S. Polymethyl Methacrylate in Patient-Specific Implants: Description of a New Three-Dimension Technique. J Craniofac Surg. 2019 Mar/Apr;30(2):408-411. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000005148. |
| 19438669 | Background | Carvalho Costa IM, Salaro CP, Costa MC. Polymethylmethacrylate facial implant: a successful personal experience in Brazil for more than 9 years. Dermatol Surg. 2009 Aug;35(8):1221-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4725.2009.01216.x. Epub 2009 May 12. |
| 35114708 | Background | de la Guardia C, Virno A, Musumeci M, Bernardin A, Silberberg MB. Rheologic and Physicochemical Characteristics of Hyaluronic Acid Fillers: Overview and Relationship to Product Performance. Facial Plast Surg. 2022 Apr;38(2):116-123. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1741560. Epub 2022 Feb 3. |
| 2681290 | Background | Clark DP, Hanke CW, Swanson NA. Dermal implants: safety of products injected for soft tissue augmentation. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989 Nov;21(5 Pt 1):992-8. doi: 10.1016/s0190-9622(89)70288-7. |
| 12870861 | Background | Jordan DR. Soft-tissue fillers for wrinkles, folds and volume augmentation. Can J Ophthalmol. 2003 Jun;38(4):285-8. doi: 10.1016/s0008-4182(03)80093-5. |
| 15745230 | Background | Haneke E. Polymethyl methacrylate microspheres in collagen. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2004 Dec;23(4):227-32. doi: 10.1016/j.sder.2004.08.002. |
| 29872906 | Background | Blanco Souza TA, Colome LM, Bender EA, Lemperle G. Brazilian Consensus Recommendation on the Use of Polymethylmethacrylate Filler in Facial and Corporal Aesthetics. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2018 Oct;42(5):1244-1251. doi: 10.1007/s00266-018-1167-1. Epub 2018 Jun 5. |