ivan808 wrote: What should a 'conservative' approach mean? I'm greedy for results but obviously safety first. Would it be worth the money to get a 'conservative' solution?
This is a good question.
So think of
Girth enhancement by way of
Dermal Filler injections as building a wall, layering brick on top of brick. Imagine you want the mortar (cement) to harden before adding new layers of brick, so that you can get the most aesthetically and structurally sound brick wall possible. I'm not sure if that's how modern day bricklaying is done, but it's meant to provide a visual of what I mean by "conservative approach."
This was originally the strategy for fat transfers -- the Doctor would layer a small layer of fat into the penis so that it can vascularize (blood supply so the fat harvest can survive) and to reduce the likelihood of lumps. Then you'd return to get incrementally thicker, while reducing implant failure and reducing the risk of aesthetic irregularity (i.e. lumps, bumps, and nodules).
This same strategy can be employed for dermal fillers. The fillers still need to integrate into the surrounding tissue (akin to the vascularization of fat), and so limiting the volume injected per session can best improve the odds of a successful and natural outcome. Now it is possible to have successful outcomes with larger volumes in a single session, but if you are (a) uncut, and/or, (b) favor natural results over sheer
Girth, and/or (c) can see this through logistically (budget, travel, etc), the "conservative approach" is your best bet.
I hope that makes sense.