TOPIC: New to PE surgery and looking for advice

Hi, all,

I have had body image problems regarding my penis for many years now. I'm 26 years old. I know that these body image problems are not particularly grounded in reality, but I am considering surgery to address them.

I'm looking for a procedure which is:

* permanent, so no fat grafts, but ideally reversible if needed

* somewhat "natural" or "organic," in that the surgery involves actually augmenting the physical components of my body and not fillers like silicone, PMMA, etc

* not drastic. I'm about 7" non-bonepressed and maybe 5.25" around, though that varies with my shaft. I'm only looking to add half an Inch to an Inch maximum in Girth, and maybe a bit in length but nothing insane

I've read into these Acellular dermal matrix grafts, things like Belladerm and Alloderm. I'm sure this isn't news to anyone reading this, but they're donor skin matrices that have been stripped of skin and fat cells, which your body grows into with cells and blood vessels. This appeals to me as it would in many ways actually be part of my body. But I'd like to hear more from people who've had these procedures done. I don't want to wreck my Dick, and I don't want to have to get it taken out, or have tons of touch-ups / follow-ups. I just want minor augmentation and then I want to be done. Is that a viable outcome with these sorts of procedures?

i'm a say this man i'm 7 BPl and if you are 7 nbpl you super up. top that off you
re 5.25 which is above average. id say ellanise is a good choice for something long term and not perm. i got PMMA two rounds and start with stats lower than yours. so you might be able to get to 5.7 5.8. thickness. far as length bro don't even risk it. once you a have a thicker shaft at that length it's going to look crazy. a red bull can is about 5 Inch a little more but the thickness of the can makes it look crazy.

unknow1948 wrote: i'm a say this man i'm 7 BPl and if you are 7 nbpl you super up. top that off you
re 5.25 which is above average. id say ellanise is a good choice for something long term and not perm. i got PMMA two rounds and start with stats lower than yours. so you might be able to get to 5.7 5.8. thickness. far as length bro don't even risk it. once you a have a thicker shaft at that length it's going to look crazy. a red bull can is about 5 inch a little more but the thickness of the can makes it look crazy.

Well, I'd like length because my dick is kinda curved so it doesn't look quite right 7" when compared to a straight dick. I know that's petty but it's the nature of how I think. Anyway, I'm actually looking for something permanent. Also, I don't like the complications of PMMA.

I've read through a lot of medical literature, and this link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-662-46753-4.pdf in particular has been a good read. I'm really leaning towards some kind of allograft. It seems, to me, to be the most viable: permanent, composed of organic material that's eventually populated by my own tissue, and low rate of complication. But there are cases of complications, and that worries me. Like I said, I don't want to wreck my dick. I wish the medical literature documented more about the circumstances of the complications, but they don't, so that's why I'm here. But it looks like a lot of people on this board don't get allografts.

abanks wrote: * permanent, so no fat grafts, but ideally reversible if needed

You are going to find that permanent options also tend to be "hard-to-reverse". This means that it can be invasive (like a procedure that de-gloves your penis). This can also mean that "complete" removal may not be achievable.

abanks wrote: * somewhat "natural" or "organic," in that the surgery involves actually augmenting the physical components of my body and not fillers like silicone, PMMA, etc

Unfortunately, there really is no safe procedure that enlarges the actual organ itself, if you meant enlarging the erectile tissues. That doesn't mean you can't get a "natural" result with the options that are available.

abanks wrote: * not drastic. I'm about 7" non-bonepressed and maybe 5.25" around, though that varies with my shaft. I'm only looking to add half an inch to an inch maximum in girth, and maybe a bit in length but nothing insane

At your length (which is above-average), I would strongly recommend against lengthening procedures. Your girth is also of a healthy size, but if you are willing to stay committed to modest gains, you can get natural results out of both fillers (non-surgical) and dermal matrix grafts (surgical).

abanks wrote: I've read into these acellular dermal matrix grafts, things like Belladerm and Alloderm. I'm sure this isn't news to anyone reading this, but they're donor skin matrices that have been stripped of skin and fat cells, which your body grows into with cells and blood vessels. This appeals to me as it would in many ways actually be part of my body. But I'd like to hear more from people who've had these procedures done. I don't want to wreck my dick, and I don't want to have to get it taken out, or have tons of touch-ups / follow-ups. I just want minor augmentation and then I want to be done. Is that a viable outcome with these sorts of procedures?

This method is the only surgical option for girth I'm most comfortable still endorsing. A Sponsor here (Dr. Solomon) provides this procedure using Surgimend rather than Alloderm or Belladerm.

See: phalloboards.info/forum/dr-solomon-ask-m...educational-q-a.html and scroll to the 2nd post where he goes more into detail.

Also see: www.phalloboards.info/faq --> this is still under construction, including some of the links, but could be useful if you're new to the topic.

.

Skeptical_One wrote:

abanks wrote: * permanent, so no fat grafts, but ideally reversible if needed

You are going to find that permanent options also tend to be "hard-to-reverse". This means that it can be invasive (like a procedure that de-gloves your penis). This can also mean that "complete" removal may not be achievable.

abanks wrote: * somewhat "natural" or "organic," in that the surgery involves actually augmenting the physical components of my body and not fillers like silicone, PMMA, etc

Unfortunately, there really is no safe procedure that enlarges the actual organ itself, if you meant enlarging the erectile tissues. That doesn't mean you can't get a "natural" result with the options that are available.

abanks wrote: * not drastic. I'm about 7" non-bonepressed and maybe 5.25" around, though that varies with my shaft. I'm only looking to add half an inch to an inch maximum in girth, and maybe a bit in length but nothing insane

At your length (which is above-average), I would strongly recommend against lengthening procedures. Your girth is also of a healthy size, but if you are willing to stay committed to modest gains, you can get natural results out of both fillers (non-surgical) and dermal matrix grafts (surgical).

abanks wrote: I've read into these acellular dermal matrix grafts, things like Belladerm and Alloderm. I'm sure this isn't news to anyone reading this, but they're donor skin matrices that have been stripped of skin and fat cells, which your body grows into with cells and blood vessels. This appeals to me as it would in many ways actually be part of my body. But I'd like to hear more from people who've had these procedures done. I don't want to wreck my dick, and I don't want to have to get it taken out, or have tons of touch-ups / follow-ups. I just want minor augmentation and then I want to be done. Is that a viable outcome with these sorts of procedures?

This method is the only surgical option for girth I'm most comfortable still endorsing. A Sponsor here (Dr. Solomon) provides this procedure using Surgimend rather than Alloderm or Belladerm.

See: phalloboards.info/forum/dr-solomon-ask-m...educational-q-a.html and scroll to the 2nd post where he goes more into detail.

Also see: www.phalloboards.info/faq --> this is still under construction, including some of the links, but could be useful if you're new to the topic.

.

Thank you for the information. I’m definitely committed to reasonable, moderate gains. I’ve read that the dermal grafts can be used for both length and girth; is that still the case? I’d be happy with half an inch in girth and a quarter inch in length.

With the dermal grafts, I know it’s not a true change to the tissues, but I’ve read that it’s an acellular matrix that gets populated by my own vascular and skin tissue. The graft gets integrated into the penis tissue. After recovery is there risk of it like.. tearing out or something? Or does it become kind of like flesh? I’m having a hard time understanding the nature of the graft.

Dermal matrix grafts don't give you length gains (although it's plausible you could see some Flaccid gains, but I wouldn't count on it), however they are often done in conjunction with Ligamentolysis (you can also see more about that in the Solomon thread), which severs a ligament inside of you that may give added Flaccid and Erect gains. Again, with your length, I simply wouldn't bother. You could show a 7incher to most partners without a measuring stick and they'll swear you are 9inches. Think of this, every added procedure adds additional risk, no matter how low, if it's unnecessary then why even do it? That's just my take. However, if you choose to pursue it, do it with a qualified practitioner to mitigate short-term & long-term risks.

Yes the idea is that the graft vascularizes with surrounding tissue, so it "behaves" as a part of your natural penis, even if it isn't technically your penis. I prefer Dr. Solomon's approach with Surgimend - since they are cut to specific size & thickness, they have a great chance of successful vascularization; in other words, the complications with past dermal matrix graft procedures (who were performed by Doctors that no longer perform I believe) are that penises were implanted too many stacked grafts in an attempt to achieve maximum Girth. This prevented adequate vascularization, thus constricting the graft (i.e. shrinking Girth), or worse, implant failure.

Pros: Due to precision cut graft matrices, the penis has a very uniform, natural look. Also, the implant material becomes a part of you through vascularization of the graft.
Cons: Size is capped (i.e. you are probably not going to get more than 0.75"-1.00", but to be quite frank, this being a "con" is arguable since the aforementioned gains are still quite significant); also, Removal can be quite invasive.
Neutral: Is likely pricier than filler injections, but if you have the budget for it, worth consideration.

This is why, again, I have only trusted Dr. Solomon in this regard since he doesn't over-stack grafts and is medically-conservative with his approach (i.e. he won't offer you excessively large gains) +PLUS as a Board Certified Plastic Surgeon, he's done so many penis surgery revisions from other Clinics that he's quite privy to what works and what doesn't.

Skeptical_One wrote: Dermal matrix grafts don't give you length gains (although it's plausible you could see some Flaccid gains, but I wouldn't count on it), however they are often done in conjunction with Ligamentolysis (you can also see more about that in the Solomon thread), which severs a ligament inside of you that may give added Flaccid and Erect gains. Again, with your length, I simply wouldn't bother. You could show a 7incher to most partners without a measuring stick and they'll swear you are 9inches. Think of this, every added procedure adds additional risk, no matter how low, if it's unnecessary then why even do it? That's just my take. However, if you choose to pursue it, do it with a qualified practitioner to mitigate short-term & long-term risks.

Yes the idea is that the graft vascularizes with surrounding tissue, so it "behaves" as a part of your natural penis, even if it isn't technically your penis. I prefer Dr. Solomon's approach with Surgimend - since they are cut to specific size & thickness, they have a great chance of successful vascularization; in other words, the complications with past dermal matrix graft procedures (who were performed by Doctors that no longer perform I believe) are that penises were implanted too many stacked grafts in an attempt to achieve maximum Girth. This prevented adequate vascularization, thus constricting the graft (i.e. shrinking Girth), or worse, implant failure.

Pros: Due to precision cut graft matrices, the penis has a very uniform, natural look. Also, the implant material becomes a part of you through vascularization of the graft.
Cons: Size is capped (i.e. you are probably not going to get more than 0.75"-1.00", but to be quite frank, this being a "con" is arguable since the aforementioned gains are still quite significant); also, Removal can be quite invasive.
Neutral: Is likely pricier than filler injections, but if you have the budget for it, worth consideration.

This is why, again, I have only trusted Dr. Solomon in this regard since he doesn't over-stack grafts and is medically-conservative with his approach (i.e. he won't offer you excessively large gains) +PLUS as a Board Certified Plastic Surgeon, he's done so many penis surgery revisions from other Clinics that he's quite privy to what works and what doesn't.

Fair enough. I can live without the added length but I need the Girth. Do you have any recommendations for surgeons in the San Francisco Bay Area?

Skeptical_One wrote: Dermal matrix grafts don't give you length gains (although it's plausible you could see some Flaccid gains, but I wouldn't count on it), however they are often done in conjunction with Ligamentolysis (you can also see more about that in the Solomon thread), which severs a ligament inside of you that may give added Flaccid and Erect gains. Again, with your length, I simply wouldn't bother. You could show a 7incher to most partners without a measuring stick and they'll swear you are 9inches. Think of this, every added procedure adds additional risk, no matter how low, if it's unnecessary then why even do it? That's just my take. However, if you choose to pursue it, do it with a qualified practitioner to mitigate short-term & long-term risks.

Yes the idea is that the graft vascularizes with surrounding tissue, so it "behaves" as a part of your natural penis, even if it isn't technically your penis. I prefer Dr. Solomon's approach with Surgimend - since they are cut to specific size & thickness, they have a great chance of successful vascularization; in other words, the complications with past dermal matrix graft procedures (who were performed by Doctors that no longer perform I believe) are that penises were implanted too many stacked grafts in an attempt to achieve maximum Girth. This prevented adequate vascularization, thus constricting the graft (i.e. shrinking Girth), or worse, implant failure.

Pros: Due to precision cut graft matrices, the penis has a very uniform, natural look. Also, the implant material becomes a part of you through vascularization of the graft.
Cons: Size is capped (i.e. you are probably not going to get more than 0.75"-1.00", but to be quite frank, this being a "con" is arguable since the aforementioned gains are still quite significant); also, Removal can be quite invasive.
Neutral: Is likely pricier than filler injections, but if you have the budget for it, worth consideration.

This is why, again, I have only trusted Dr. Solomon in this regard since he doesn't over-stack grafts and is medically-conservative with his approach (i.e. he won't offer you excessively large gains) +PLUS as a Board Certified Plastic Surgeon, he's done so many penis surgery revisions from other Clinics that he's quite privy to what works and what doesn't.

Does this procedure require Circumcision?

I don't think so but to be sure, I'd contact Dr. Solomon's office on the matter (of Circumcision).

abanks wrote:

Skeptical_One wrote: Dermal matrix grafts don't give you length gains (although it's plausible you could see some Flaccid gains, but I wouldn't count on it), however they are often done in conjunction with Ligamentolysis (you can also see more about that in the Solomon thread), which severs a ligament inside of you that may give added Flaccid and Erect gains. Again, with your length, I simply wouldn't bother. You could show a 7incher to most partners without a measuring stick and they'll swear you are 9inches. Think of this, every added procedure adds additional risk, no matter how low, if it's unnecessary then why even do it? That's just my take. However, if you choose to pursue it, do it with a qualified practitioner to mitigate short-term & long-term risks.

Yes the idea is that the graft vascularizes with surrounding tissue, so it "behaves" as a part of your natural penis, even if it isn't technically your penis. I prefer Dr. Solomon's approach with Surgimend - since they are cut to specific size & thickness, they have a great chance of successful vascularization; in other words, the complications with past dermal matrix graft procedures (who were performed by Doctors that no longer perform I believe) are that penises were implanted too many stacked grafts in an attempt to achieve maximum Girth. This prevented adequate vascularization, thus constricting the graft (i.e. shrinking Girth), or worse, implant failure.

Pros: Due to precision cut graft matrices, the penis has a very uniform, natural look. Also, the implant material becomes a part of you through vascularization of the graft.
Cons: Size is capped (i.e. you are probably not going to get more than 0.75"-1.00", but to be quite frank, this being a "con" is arguable since the aforementioned gains are still quite significant); also, Removal can be quite invasive.
Neutral: Is likely pricier than filler injections, but if you have the budget for it, worth consideration.

This is why, again, I have only trusted Dr. Solomon in this regard since he doesn't over-stack grafts and is medically-conservative with his approach (i.e. he won't offer you excessively large gains) +PLUS as a Board Certified Plastic Surgeon, he's done so many penis surgery revisions from other Clinics that he's quite privy to what works and what doesn't.

Fair enough. I can live without the added length but I need the Girth. Do you have any recommendations for surgeons in the San Francisco Bay Area?

For surgimend/alloderm/Belladerm, not really. Honestly, the vast majority of people who get work done end up traveling since Phalloplasty isn't nearly as common as nose & boob job providers, and the very best (like our Sponsors) are dotted all over the globe. Short of you (coincidentally) residing near a pro, you should probably consider travel as a part of the process.