TOPIC: Infections, Complications, Risks of PMMA?

Agree with brother smartman.

I think we all accept there is a small chance a granuloma may form form post PMMA (or any other filler for that matter). But I\'d like to know what that means in reality. I mean obviously no one would want the granuloma in the picture on their face or Cock, but at least you can hide your Cock while you get it resolved. So I\'d like to know how bad it would be if it happened ? And how does it compare to the potential complications of other enlargement methods ?

We have to differentiate between using any filler for wrinkles treatment (more superficial injection) and for volume enhancement (more deeper injection) and the chance of FBG formation in these both areas.
In that picture it was from a semi-permanent filler (which can happen also in a permanent filler e.g. PMMA) which is used for Naso-Labial fold correction, so the injection here is more superficial in comparison with e.g penile and butts injection ( as you inject closer to the skin you will get more immune reaction ( and the chance of FBG is more) than if you inject in deeper spaces like e.g.Butts enhancement ) , so thats why the doctors e.g. in Brazil inject deep to avoid or to lessen the chance of FBG formation.
So in penile PMMA bioplasty is noway to compare it with wrinkles or folds PMMA injection.
In conclusion :- The chance of PMMA FBG can happen mostly if the beads have an irregular surface or small beads or has electro-static charges or the technique of the doctor or the purpose of injecting the PMMA e.g. in more superficial area (e.g. wrinkles), also not to forget FBG can be triggered if a patient has a systemic infection.

@hoddle10

Nobody is to blame or is \"at fault\". You\'ve done a great deal to help others. Surgical as well as non-surgical augmentation of one\'s \"pride and joy\" is not something that should ever be entered into lightly. I implore all considering PMMA or any other augmentative procedure to explore all possible methods/procedures and the corresponding risks. Each procedure has pros and cons and associated risks. I would advise anyone under the age of 25 to use this forum as an education center. SO, EP, Supa, EQ, smartman, myself and others have touched on this topic before. That being said... I personally see PMMA as the best choice/alternative for Girth enhancement at this point in time. Who knows, in six months, PMMA could be considered outdated and a barbaric attempt of the past to enlarge one\'s penis. To our younger members/guests, realize that the ramifications of surgery are real. Complications (though rare) DO occur. I\'d hate to be in my teens/twenties and lose the use of my penis; the joy that it brings both myself and my respective partner. It is catastrophic; physically, emotionally and mentally. I know. I suffered from peyronie\'s for 15 long years. Think about it people. That is all.

eqstudent wrote: @ S.O.

It is reasonable to project that at the 5 year mark; for every 100 of us that have PMMA injections, 2 of us will get a granuloma, 1 of us will get it resolved after 4 months to a year of treatment, and 1 of us will need to have it surgically removed!

Which is exactly why PMMA currently appears to be by a long way the best option.

I think one thing this board is severly lacking is a sticky thread discussing the history of PE. This is largelly my fault as not long after the old board started I told SO I\'d do this, but never got around to it. Too often many of the \"old timers\" assume that newbies know the score and are aware that we are really just looking for the safest option as oppossed to a safe option, as the safe option simply doesn\'t exist, hence PE procedures are carried about by so few Dr\'s world wide.

In my opinion, one issue we are seeing that is of concern is too many guys are coming along with bigger than average girths and simply want more to boost their ego (nothing wrong with that at all). Unfortunately, I don\'t think PE is sufficiently evolved yet for guys to have a procedure in order to satisfy their vanity. I personally think, these procedures, in their current form, really should be limited to those who suffer from psycological trauma and have the lives effected by the size of their penis (I realise this can also be the case with above average guys.) It basically comes down to risk reward. The rewards are much greater for some guys than others. A guy who has a good size and just want more to feel more sexually satissfied is never going to get as much out of this as a genuinely small guy, who is scared of sexual encounters, avoids locker rooms and generally has low self esteem due to his size.

@eqstudent and others
I am glad that both sides of PMMA are being discussed here. The last thing I would want is some 18 year old kid thinking, \"hey, I can add 1.5 inches of Girth without any problem!\". It\'s important that we point out all the information. Ultimately, people can make the decisions themselves, but it is IMPERATIVE that they have access to all the information.
Some people will think, \"even if it is a 1 percent risk, I\'m still going forward because the day to day is depressing.\" In my opinion, that is fine as long as they are fully aware of the risks. Some people can bear a higher threshold of risk -- perhaps ten percent or even higher. The important thing that people need to know is that none of this is without risk, and that risk could be very serious.
Just my two cents.

@eqstudent

Thank you for your insightful research into unexplored territory. We all assume the associated risk when undertaking a new medical procedure. FBG can occur from a plethora of injectables in various parts of the body. Sometimes, our bodies just don\'t agree with our decisions. Good advice to all considering augmentation with PMMA. The pathology is similar, however, there are many variables as you well know. Some may experience serious adverse reactions long term; others may not have any. Some will be treatable. Some will require surgery. It is unwise to recommend such a procedure without acknowledging ALL associated risks. Thanks for shedding some light on this subject. Especially to some of the \"young guns\" that come on board and (due to their youth/ignorance) hop on board the PMMA proverbial wagon.

EQ reality checks are always welcome. More than that, reasonable people cannot do without.

The chances of having a chunk of our unit removed are to be factored in/estimated, within our decision making process.

Boys, how depressing is reality, sometimes.

@ S.O.

It's very clear that the medical community certainly considers granulomas a very serious complication of permanent fillers (PMMA). Even the staunchest proponents of Artefill considers granulomas a serious complication, some like Alastair Carruters who were amongst the leaders in championing Artefill have since done a 180 based on the number, severity, and treatment efficacy of real world granulomas. www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/135215598.html Lemperle's propaganda has since been soundly discredited on this issue.It is important that we remember that a PMMA granuloma is not just a lump or lesion. It is a late-onset inflammatory response which typically occurs from 1 to 10+ years after injection. As such it can vary in intensity from mild to very severe and can be very painful. In severe cases it can become fluid filled (pus) and drain. In some cases it can become a chronic inflammatory condition meaning it may appear to resolve either from treatment or spontaneously but reappears at some future point in time.Sometimes a picture helps in these discussions. The following illustrates an example severe permanent filler granuloma and resulting surgical excision. It is not a PMMA triggered granuloma but the morphology is similar and provides a good visual that illustrates a filler triggered granuloma. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21430829TreatmentWhile there are treatments options, typically with a corticosteroid and anti-mitotic combination, the reality is that some PMMA granulomas do not respond even after a year or more of treatment and have to be surgically removed.IncidencesThe initial Arfefill study (5 years) presented to the FDA had 2 cases of severe granulomas out of 145 people (1.4%). One partially responded to treatment the other had to be surgically removed. The FDA mandated follow-up had 6 cases out of 1008 at the 3 year mark (1 at the 1 year mark) (0.59%). phalloboards.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=5403442 If Sunvale Medical\'s (Artefill) commentary that Newplastic is similar to Arteplast is true then we should expect a 10 fold increase in adverse effects from Newplastic! It is reasonable to project that at the 5 year mark; for every 100 of us that have PMMA injections, 2 of us will get a granuloma, 1 of us will get it resolved after 4 months to a year of treatment, and 1 of us will need to have it surgically removed!

Thanks Hoddle

Veil sounds a good option.

Trying to get all the bases covered if i do get PMMA.

Go to a plastic surgeon then. Kenalog is just a steroid and is used in plastic surgery all the time when scar tissue is too thich or swelling is bad. Mr Viel used Kenalog on me.

Thanks Hoddle but the NHS are not noted for their speedy appointment\'s, although definitely an option.

I was thinking more of a private practitioner. Would prefer any possible issues resolved as quickly as possible.

The NHS would treat you.

Does anyone know a Doctor in the Uk that would treat granulomas in the penis from PMMA.

Either through Kenalog injections or some other method.

Asking because, would be greatly relieved if i would not need to travel to Mexico for treatment every time a complication occured.

Does anyone know/heard of someone who has had PMMA in penis for two years or longer?I asked Wade if there has been any serious complications with penis on their patients and he said: No.
Great luck that there is honest folk with so much knowledge on this forum!!