Calf augmentation and volumetric restoration: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Because of the recent attention focused on the aesthetics of the leg, outcomes in the literature are under-reported and require further investigation. We summarized the available evidence on the surgical techniques to augment the volume and dimension of the calf based on clinical outcomes and satisfaction rates. An electronic search was conducted across PubMed MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Ovid MEDLINER(R) in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Data collection included the patients’ characteristics, surgical techniques, and postoperative outcomes. Pooled estimates were calculated with a random-effect meta-analysis using the DerSimonian–Laird model. This review included 48 articles reporting outcomes of 2455 patients. The average age and follow-up were 33.15 years and 33.58 months, respectively. The most common indications for calf augmentation were esthetic concerns (48.7%). Most patients underwent subfascial implant placement (70.2%) followed by fat transfer (17.6%), submuscular implant placement (10.1%). Overall, the pooled satisfaction rate following calf augmentation was 95.4% (95% CI: 93.7%–97%). The pooled satisfaction rate for implant placement and fat transfer was 96.7% (95% CI: 94.4%–97.9%) and 87.2% (95% CI: 78.5%–96%), respectively. The pooled incidence of implant removal was 1.3% (95% CI: 0.7%–2%). The pooled estimate for additional fat grafting procedures following initial fat transfer was 54.1% (95% CI: 38.3%–70%). While fat transfer has an exceptional safety profile, additional procedures to achieve satisfactory outcomes are usually necessary. Subfascial implant placement provides the best volumetric expansion with a lower implant removal rate and optimal safety profile. [Display omitted]