Huy LuongSave this storySave this story
If you want to make a plastic surgeon squirm, just ask them about "trends" in the field. The T-word sets them on edge. And we get it: It's deeply unwise to allow the whims of fashion to dictate the age at which you get a facelift or the size of the breast implants you put in your body. After all, if you're unhappy with your purchase, you can't simply return it as you would a disappointing pair of barrel jeans. Nevertheless, plastic surgery isn't immune from the influence of culture, the virality of social media, or the fluctuating preferences of the people. Each year, surgeons see the demand for certain treatments swell, and the interest in others recede.
When we asked these doctors how they foresee the aesthetic landscape shifting in the months ahead, they were quick to confirm the staying power of certain procedures and phenomena that Allure has recently covered: the GLP-1-propelled boom in body contouring, the enduring appeal of liposuction, the downsizing of breast implants, the rise of tissue-preserving facelifts and boob jobs, the increasing demand for ready-to-use fat (a.k.a. Alloclae), and even the anticipated growth of rib remodeling. While that last one may seem like a stretch (social media is, frankly, appalled), board-certified plastic surgeon Charles Galanis, MD, predicts that the controversial procedure will gain ground in 2026. “It’s all part of the year of the waist,” he says.
Surgeons also alluded, somewhat vaguely, to “regenerative” treatments, which have garnered tremendous buzz lately—and may someday have an Ozempic-caliber influence on the field—but currently lack evidence and FDA approvals. (We’re talking exosomes, salmon sperm, growth factors, and novel peptides.) By and large, “these are much more experimental kinds of concepts that have not played out yet in clinical trials,” says Daniel J. Gould, MD, a board-certified plastic surgeon and the section editor for regenerative medicine at the Aesthetic Surgery Journal. From a scientific standpoint, he adds, 2026 will be a year for separating fads from facts in this realm, but it could be some time before these treatments yield enough convincing data to be widely adopted in practice.
So what’s emerging now and actually within reach? Ahead, plastic surgeons prognosticate on the treatments that will fizzle out, gain steam, or even revel in a rebrand.
The BBL is back—undetectable and with a new name.
The Brazilian butt lift is staging a quiet comeback. How quiet? “We don’t even mention the word BBL,” says board-certified plastic surgeon Ryan Neinstein, MD of his New York City office. Surgeons are dropping the acronym in favor of the procedure’s formal name: fat grafting to the buttocks. “The term BBL still frightens people,” Dr. Galanis explains, “so we have to be careful with that and explain that what we’re referring to is fat transfer.”
The fear is rooted in old data—namely, a survey from 2017, which reported that the BBL had the highest mortality rate in plastic surgery. The findings were hotly contested, Dr. Galanis notes, since the study had a low response rate and relied on self-reported outcomes, mostly from South Florida clinics “allegedly operating under less than ideal circumstances.” The paper also outlined technical recommendations for making the surgery safer (number one being: avoid injecting into the gluteal muscle, which can cause a fatal fat embolism). When the BBL survey was repeated a few years later (“in a more well-designed study,” says Dr. Galanis), the death rate had dropped and was shown to be similar to that of a tummy tuck. What’s more, a 2022 study looking at the disproportionately high rate of BBL deaths in South Florida, specifically, linked the majority of fatalities to “high-volume, budget clinics.” R. Brannon Claytor, MD, a board-certified plastic surgeon in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, blames these “chop shops” for “giving a bad name to a good operation.”
While the procedure hasn’t completely shaken off the stigma, in 2026, the BB… sorry, fat grafting to the butt is reemerging as a safe surgery that prioritizes shape over size. “The results are more subtle, more complementary to other procedures—like, you’re getting liposuction or a tummy tuck, and the BBL is just meant to complement the contours you’re creating elsewhere,” Dr. Galanis says. In a sense, the BBL is lending to a smooth silhouette overall, easing the transition between the waist, hips, butt, and thighs, he explains, and the end result is “not something that is popping out of clothes,” but rather “a look that someone could’ve been born with”—or perhaps built at the gym. Surgeons describe the new aesthetic as perky and athletic. “We talk about the ‘Pilates-instructor butt,” says Dr. Neinstein. In the majority of his mommy makeovers—including those on 50-, 60-, even 70-somethings—he’s “putting just a little bit of fat above the muscle,” so that the butt, when lifted, doesn’t look deflated and flat. Gone are the Kardashian comparisons. “We’ve gotten past the idea that a BBL means having a huge ass,” he says. “That’s no longer how patients think about it.”
Facelifts will target the midface through smaller incisions.
In recent years, the facelift has seized the zeitgeist. We’ve witnessed the relentless rivalry between deep plane and SMAS proponents, the incessant speculation over 30-something celebrities getting surgery, and the all-out hysteria surrounding a certain 70-year-old who shocked the internet by naming her facelift surgeon (and then inviting him to her birthday party). Each moment has helped to transform the facelift from a last-ditch surgery for seniors to a coveted glow-up for virtually anyone who can afford it.
What’s next? Some say the biggest news pertains to smaller scars, as more surgeons are offering “limited-incision deep plane lifts” (a.k.a. “midface lifts” or “endoscopic lifts”), primarily to patients who are seeing early drooping but still have good skin elasticity. In such cases, surgeons can use endoscope-guided techniques to target and reposition fallen tissues while skipping the usual incisions around the ears where extra skin is customarily cut away.
Unlike mini lifts of the past—which inspired the mantra: “mini lift, mini results”—the latest iterations go deeper and are more comprehensive and durable. These are “maximally invasive surgeries performed through minimally invasive incisions,” explains Dr. Gould. His version of the procedure elevates the outer brow and the cheeks through tiny incisions hidden in the hair behind the temples. For patients who also want to address their necks, he makes a separate incision under the chin, through which he can tighten the platysma muscle and reduce deeper structures that are detracting from a sleek jawline. As with the scalp incisions, the nick under the chin serves only as an entry portal; it doesn’t allow for skin removal.
While limited-incision lifts are having a moment, they’re not new. Andrew Frankel, MD, a double board-certified facial plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills, says he’s been performing midface lifts since 1998. (He approaches the cheeks both from above, through slits in the scalp, and below, via incisions inside the mouth, freeing up the tissues and suspending them in a higher position.) While the midface lift has gone in and out of fashion over the years, Dr. Frankel has always found it to be a powerful tool for vertically lifting and “optimizing” the cheeks without adding artificial volume. “If someone doesn't have lax skin or jowls, a midface lift can redistribute the volume in the cheeks and provide a refreshed look without visible incisions,” he says.
Unsurprised by the procedure’s resurgence, Dr. Frankel attributes it to the public’s disillusionment with filler—the sad fact that it can’t lift the cheeks—as well as the uptick in 30- and 40-somethings seeking surgery as a means of beautifying. When he performs the midface lift as a standalone operation, it’s typically on younger patients (average age: 45) with the goal of enhancing cheek projection and obscuring under-eye hollows. “What it doesn’t do is affect your jawline and neck,” he notes. So, in older patients, he’ll commonly combine the midface lift with a traditional deep plane face and neck lift.
“A lot of surgeons are doing that,” adds Mike Roskies, MD, a double board-certified facial plastic surgeon in Toronto—meaning: incorporating endoscopic midface maneuvers into their “open” deep plane surgeries in order to boost the cheeks more effectively. In a field rife with conflicting opinions, surgeons seem to agree on this: “The midface represents the future of facelifting,” says Dr. Gould. “It’s the hardest thing to get right, but it’s where the beauty lies.”
“Submandibular glands” will be the talk of TikTok.
The next big controversy in aesthetics will focus on the neck, says Babak Azizzadeh, MD, the president-elect of the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. “We’re going to be hearing a lot more about the submandibular glands and how surgeons treat them,” he says. The debate over when and how to reduce these salivary glands is already in full swing at medical meetings, but Dr. Azizzadeh expects it to fully permeate the public forum next year (if not sooner: I saved three posts on submandibular gland contouring last week alone).
During a deep neck lift, which some call a “structural neck contouring,” surgeons go underneath the platysma muscle to trim the deep fat, the digastric muscles (which help to open the mouth), and the submandibular glands, which can droop and bulge with age, compromising a clean neckline. While not everyone needs a gland reduction, “in some patients, no matter how great of a deep plane facelift you do, if you don’t contour the glands, you’re not going to get a beautiful result overall,” Dr. Azizzadeh says.
The pursuit of next-level outcomes is compelling facelift surgeons to address the glands with a greater frequency than in the past. Dr. Azizzadeh says he treats the glands in 50% to 70% of face and neck lift cases; five years ago, the number was less than 10%. Dr. Roskies adds that in about 80% of his patients, “gland reduction is a necessity to get the results we want.”
But not every surgeon is trained in gland reduction or comfortable navigating the deep neck, where there’s an increased risk of bleeding and nerve injury. In the past, those doctors simply avoided the glands and blamed mediocre results on unfavorable anatomy. “They’d say, ‘Oh, they’ve got a tough neck,’ and chalk it up to that,” Dr. Claytor. In 2026, however, with social media showcasing neck angles few mortals are born with, expectations are sky-high—for patients and doctors alike. At every level, surgeons are aiming to up their game. “They’re looking at a handful of facelift leaders across the world, who are getting results that they wish they could get for their own patients, and they’re trying to mimic every aspect of their techniques,” Dr. Roskies says.
Aesthetically speaking, deep neck specialists say they’re already seeing the trend being taken too far. “We don’t want sculpted jawlines that make women look like Chads,” says Dr. Roskies, referring to the alpha-male stereotype with a hyperchiseled chin. “We want feminine jawlines—and sometimes that means reducing the glands in a more conservative fashion than we would have in the past.”
Facial fat grafting will continue to rise.
For years, surgeons have been suctioning fat from areas of excess and processing it into microfat and nanofat before injecting it into the face. While microfat contains intact fat cells that lend volume and structure, more finely filtered nanofat—which results from rupturing fat cells to release their stem cells and growth factors—is lauded for its healing and rejuvenative effects. Doctors often use nanofat around the eyes and mouth to smooth the skin. Some inject it into the scalp to help regrow hair or under the skin to treat inflammatory conditions, like rosacea and melasma, as well as acne scarring.
“Fat is far and away the most superior volumizing agent that we currently have and it’s one of the richest sources of stem cells in our body,” says Faryan Jalalabadi, MD, a board-certified plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills. He sees fat emerging as a safer, more natural alternative to overhyped regenerative treatments, like salmon sperm, exosomes, and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), which are understudied in aesthetics and illegal to inject in the U.S. With nanofat especially, “we can deliver your own exosomes and stem cells,” adds Dr. Claytor. He frequently uses nanofat to treat stubborn lines around the mouth, applying it after CO2 laser resurfacing and microneedling in order to speed recovery and allay pain.
(The purported stem cell benefits of fat are still largely anecdotal, it’s worth noting. “There are regenerative properties to fat that we can see in our surgical results,” says Dr. Roskies. He credits the stem cells in fat with hydrating the skin from within, for instance, and lending vitality to the skin. However, he adds, “until we take biopsies of skin on healthy cosmetic patients and analyze the difference before and after, we won’t really know [its true effects].”)
Further driving interest in fat grafting is the public’s dwindling appetite for hyaluronic (HA) acid injections. “We’re in an era of filler fear,” Dr. Roskies says. “We lost the plot by taking it too far and using it in ways it should never have been used.” (Looking at you, “liquid facelift.”) As a result, Dr. Roskies’ office has seen a 400% increase in fat transfer inquiries in the last year alone. Dr. Jalalabadi says he’s also seeing more interest in fat from patients of all ages. He attributes the boom to a growing awareness of filler’s “downstream effects”—potential long-term issues like swelling, lymphatic obstruction, and interference with future surgery and recovery.
While most of the doctors I interviewed believe there’s still a role for HA in aesthetics, they also expect the popularity of fat to continue to soar as more people sour on filler. To meet the demand, some are now offering fat grafting as a standalone treatment under local anesthesia. (Historically, it’s been most often used alongside facelifts.) Dr. Gould, for example, commonly uses it to maintain previous facelift outcomes. Three to five years post-lift, he says, some patients come back for a round of fat grafting to “perk up” the face. “We’re seeing a lot more of that,” he says. “In an hour and a half, we do a little bit of fat grafting and it goes a really long way.”
Nonsurgical skin tightening as a substitute for surgery will plummet.
In October, the FDA alerted the public to reports of serious complications from radiofrequency (RF) microneedling devices. Among them: burns, scarring, fat loss, disfigurement, and nerve damage. Some in the field say the warning was long overdue, as doctors have, for years, been cautioning about RF-related complications, which typically occur when inexperienced practitioners deliver excessive energy beyond the dermis, into the fat and deep tissues, in an attempt to lift and tighten the face. On social media, injured patients have banded together to speak out about the dangers these devices can pose. With myriad factors eroding trust in nonsurgical skin tighteners, experts say we may soon see them go the way of noninvasive fat reduction modalities, which fell by 40% between 2023 and 2024.
“The trend of people coming in and asking for Morpheus8 or Sylfirm or whatever [brand of RF microneedling]—that trend is down by about 50% in our practice,” Dr. Azizzadeh says. “It has flown off the cliff.” He believes the manufacturers of these devices created “a negative self-fullfilling prophecy” by falsely advertising the technology as a replacement for facelift surgery—an outcome that no device can deliver. Given the backlash, he adds, “I think it’s going to take a year or two for [this category of treatments] to acclimate and for practitioners to learn where these tools benefit the patient and when to use them and when not to use them.”
In Dr. Azizzadeh’s experience, RF microneedling “can be a fantastic tool” for addressing fine wrinkling or poor skin elasticity, particularly after a facelift. Dr. Gould says the same, adding that he confines the energy to the skin, going only one to two millimeters deep. (Some RF microneedling devices have the potential to reach up to 8 millimeters.) Other surgeons echo the importance of staying shallow. “I think energy-based devices have a place in the future of aesthetic medicine where the indication is for skin health—improving the texture and porosity of the skin or superficial acne scarring,” says Dr. Roskies. “But the second you expand that indication to lifting, you risk damaging structures and shrinking the fat underneath the skin.”
Tummy tucks are going 360, scars be damned.
In some practices, the standard hip-to-hip tummy tuck is taking a backseat to extended and circumferential versions of the procedure, which sculpt the entire torso in one fell swoop. (While the circumferential or 360 incision encircles the waist, the extended incision wraps around the hips but doesn’t approach the butt.) Forcing the procedure’s evolution: GLP-1s, for starters. “Because patients are losing so much weight so quickly, we’re seeing more people with excess skin on their tummies, flanks [love handles], and lower backs—there’s laxity everywhere,” says Michael Stein, MD, a board-certified plastic surgeon in New York City. In those cases, “if we do a traditional tummy tuck, they look great in the front, but then they’re pinching their flanks and their backs, and they eventually come back for another surgery [to address those areas].”
While some surgeons are just now shifting to more comprehensive tucks when warranted —usually following pregnancy or any major weight loss—Dr. Neinstein says he began moving away from what he calls the “legacy tuck” after the pandemic. As GLP-1s entered the mainstream, “people became looser everywhere,” he says—and the goalpost of patient desires advanced in a big way. “I realized we weren’t doing enough,” says Dr. Neinstein. By addressing only the front of the abdomen, “we were kind of renovating the upstairs bathroom and hoping the whole house would look different,” he says. “Patients’ expectations have dramatically evolved since the original tummy tuck was first described, and a 40-year-old operation can’t match the demands [of the modern patient]. We have to evolve, too.”
In Dr. Neinstein’s practice, 60% of the tummy tucks he performs are circumferential, 20% are extended, and the other 20% are front tucks. One third of his 360 tucks are revisions of previous tucks that lacked the “wow factor,” he says. Dr. Gould is also seeing more candidates for circumferential tucks. “Every patient is unique—some need it, some don’t,” he says. “But when the old-style tummy tuck can’t totally address the patient’s problems, we’re not doing them any favors by offering smaller surgeries.”
During a circumferential tuck, surgeons remove skin and fat from all around the torso and repair separated abdominal muscles to strengthen the core. They also lift the butt and thighs by tailoring the skin on the outside and tightening the fascia on the inside. Preserving this layer of connective tissue, which is rich in lymphatic vessels, offers the unsung advantage of forgoing drains. (These tubes prevent fluid from collecting under the skin post-surgery, but can be uncomfortable and restrict movement.) By sparing the fascia and its intrinsic channels, “we’re leaving the body’s sump pump in place, so the lymphatics can drain on their own,” says Dr. Claytor. Dr. Neinstein adopted this technique about nine months ago and says he hasn’t placed a drain since. (Surgeons often pair the fascia-preserving strategy with something called progressive tension sutures—internal stitches that anchor the skin to the underlying muscles, further minimizing fluid buildup.)
Not everyone expects the circumferential tuck to take off. Dr. Galanis believes the surgery will remain a relatively niche solution for massive weight loss patients. “There will be some surgeons who use it [more broadly] as a way to optimize contours,” he says, “but in most cases, I think the combination of aggressive liposuction and a [basic] tummy tuck will accomplish the same thing without the added scar.” About that, though: Multiple surgeons have told me that patients of the GLP-1 era are generally more accepting of the scars that accompany tissue-tailoring procedures. “Ten years ago, the scar was a major issue, but now it doesn’t even really come up anymore,” Dr. Neinstein says. (Tummy tuck scars should be thin and low enough to hide in a bikini.) Dr. Stein’s take: People are realizing “that a beautiful result with more scarring is better than a suboptimal outcome with a shorter scar.”
Meet the experts
LargeChevron
- Babak Azizzadeh, MD, is the president-elect of the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.
- R. Brannon Claytor, MD, is a board-certified plastic surgeon in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania.
- Andrew Frankel, MD, is a double board-certified facial plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills.
- Charles Galanis, MD, is a board-certified plastic surgeon.
- Daniel J. Gould, MD, is a board-certified plastic surgeon and the section editor for regenerative medicine at the Aesthetic Surgery Journal.
- Faryan Jalalabadi, MD, is a board-certified plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills.
- Ryan Neinstein, MD, is a board-certified plastic surgeon in New York City who performs mommy makeovers exclusively.
- Mike Roskies, MD, is a double board-certified facial plastic surgeon in Toronto.
- Michael Stein, MD, is a board-certified plastic surgeon in New York City.
