TOPIC: Infections, Complications, Risks of PMMA?

@eqstudent
Thanks for clarification on my question.
@Skeptical One et al.
Here are two seemingly contradictory posts on whether Dr. C. would inject Artefill:
Subject: question about pmmaReplies: 4Posted By: swampmanViews: 113 After reading the thread about PMMA and concerns. I spoke to mr wade in regards to using artefill he said they can not use it in the penis, due to the collagen based vehicle.
he said however they can use metacril (sp) in place of newplastic, its about 400 /cc
any advice would be helpful... aesthetics is important but i would love to hear opinions on which seems to be a more safer PMMA

Subject: Sizemic\'s PE and PMMA logReplies: 119Posted By: Dd71Views: 4,059 @EQ&SIZE I spoke to wade yesterday and they are becoming adamant about only using 10% concentration. They say that they dont want to stray from making it anenhancement as oppossed to an enlargement. They want patients to be content with having a heavier penis with less retraction.

On a diffrent note I spoke to wade about my concern with New Plastic vs. Artefill. He said they had a 3rd party Dr study all the PMMA avaliable in the open market. This dr is from the US (Florida) and does most of his work on HIV patients for facial reconstruction. He did a blind study on all the materials and his conclusion suggested new plastic is nearly as pure as artefill. He is sending me the drs info today, when I recive it I will share it with the forum. I asked wade if one were to want artefill regardless, would Dr.C Use it/ or even be familiar with it. He said that Dr. C is familiar with it and would use ANY PMMA the patient wanted. But he still strongly suggested that it is unessasary to be frivolous being that new plastic was nearly its equal. I mean, im sure they could profit using artefill marking patients up on the product(Artefill) So IMO they honestly belive that New plastic is not inferior to artefill.

@smartman - any granuloma after a cosmetic procedure would be viewed as a serious complication by most medical personell. Please re read post 92 phalloboards.websitetoolbox.com/post/sho...9726355&postcount=92

@eqstudent
Let us think about it this way :-
To have an answer for this is IMO :-
1- the FDA approval :-
Artefill (PMMA) had the approval as a Dermal Filler and they have approved silicon oil injection (silikon 1000) for only eye procedure and not as a Dermal Filler.

2- Let\'s say If one of these 4 points you have mentioned above is true??? :-
It doesn\'t mean there is no chance of FBG (as he said it is a serious complication) after silicon oil injection even if it was 1: >5000 ??? still you can have a FBG in this silicon, correct ???
Our inquiry is not about which one (PMMA or Silicon oil) has less chance of developing FBG ?? It is about if FBG granuloma formation is a serious complication from a permanent filler or not ??? If the answer is YES ---> How about FBG formation after silicon oil injection, is it serious or not ???
I might be wrong it could be FBG after PMMA injection is more serious than after silicon oil injection .

@Skatezy,
I believe that they would use it (or any brand for that matter) from what I\'ve been told, but that it would not be very practical when it came to costs.

@eqstudent
Okay, so that low risk of granuloma formation is based on ARTEFILL, not New Plastic PMMA. And so I presume you would suspect that granuloma formation for PMMA would be much, much higher? I can\'t remember, but I believe one of the members here asked Wade about Artefill, and he said they won\'t use it. I\'ll have to double check that.

@skatezy - I rounded up the 1.4% (2/145) from the initial Artefill FDA presentation. I agree that the evidence suggests that the Newplastic numbers are likely much higher I don\'t want to get hung up on a debate on the exact number.

The important point is that if all 200 members on this forum had Newplastic PMMA, 4 of us are likely to get granulomas. Now maybe it is 10 to 20 like Arteplast or maybe only 2 or 3. It is important that the 2 or 3 or 10 or 20 brothers on this forum understand what they may be up against if their number is called!

@eqstudent
I noticed you referenced in one of your earlier posts the Caldellas study:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20601571
In that study, ALL 21 of the patients had granulomatous formations with PMMA.
I am wondering why you pegged the risk of granuloma formation then, in an earlier post, at about 2 in 100? What am I missing? That is indeed a discouraging study.

smartman wrote: ... why is he using another permanent product which can cause the same serious complication?? ...

This is the kind of question which you clutter this and other thread with which leads me to question your motives or understanding of this subject matter. Ask him not me! Quite frankly the answers are just not germane to this discussion, but pick one of the following:1) He believes that Silikon has a much lower complication rate for some procedures2) He believes that Silikon is an appropriate risk/reward solution for HIV wasting3) He believes that Silikon is overall safer than Artefill/Artesense for HIV patients4) Silikon is more cost effective for the volume required for HIV Wasting.How does this help with understanding the issues in this thread?If you don't believe that granulomas is a serious complication just say so and move on.

skatezy777 wrote: Sorry, eqstudent, is the attached paper in support of your argument that Carruthers has done a 180 and is now against Artecoll? It seems in the paper to suggest that the method is safe, and that the late onset granulomas have responded successfully to treatment.

That was one of his initial reports in 2005 when he was one of the biggest proponents of Artecoll and one who suggested that the granulomas were rare and easily managed with steroid therapy. Compare with his more recent statements including ones here:http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/135215598.htmlAlthough a 2003 publication cited just 15 cases of delayed granulomatous reactions worldwide, he has seen at least 8 cases in Vancouver alone, including one in a patient he personally injected with the permanent filler.Another patient injected 3 years ago by another physician has not responded to numerous therapies, said Dr. Carruthers.\"I\'ve spent a year and a half treating her with everything I can think of to throw at her,\" he said.A Vancouver colleague has spent a similar length of time treating a patient with a delayed granulomatous reaction, \"and she is not responding well.\"

@eq
In this study he mentioned :-
Practitioners will need to learn how to use this exacting agent and will obtain excellent results with careful use.
Background. Polymethylmethacrylate microspheres/collagen has been used in Canada since 1998. A closely related product will probably be approved in the United States shortly. Concerns have been expressed about the use of permanent fillers such as this.Objective. This retrospective study of the authors\' clinical practice is designed to reflect their experience with this agent. In particular, the authors describe some of the problems they have seen.Results. Polymethylmethacrylate microspheres/collagen has behaved as a satisfactory long-term tissue augmenting agent in the authors\' practice. They have had the opportunity of managing any number of patients with Artecoll granulomas and describe these patients.Conclusion. When polymethylmethacrylate microspheres/collagen is introduced to the United States, practitioners will need to learn how to use this exacting agent and will obtain excellent results with careful use.
So he emphasized the doctors should be well trained for any permanent filler (e.g.PMMA) ---> to reduce the risk of any complication. As far as I remember he mentioned also PMMA granulomas disappear after 3-5 years by itself ! (Carruthers)
BTW he was talking in this study about Artecoll and not about Artefill
About what I have mentioned \"Silicon oil injection\"(a permanent product) that he is using in HIV-patients with facial lipodystrophy and also the chance of FBG formation from it , I think it is important point because he mentioned as you said FBG is a serious complication from any permanent filler.
So we know FBG can happen with any fillers (including pmma) so I am only wondering if FBG is a serious complication?? why is he using a permanent product which (not FDA approved for HIV-Patients as a facial filler) can also cause this serious complication as he stated.
I have never said there is no chance of FBG formation from PMMA injection , but the thing I and also most of us here want to know if FBG is a serious complication from a permanent filler (as you have mentioned before:-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 why is he using another permanent product which can cause the same serious complication?? Do you still think I should not bring the topic about Silicon oil injection he is using ??
And I think it is a great idea what you have mentioned :-\"I think it is a good idea to start a new thread comparing the risks and complications of the different enlargement methods if that is your goal. I would certainly be interested in reading any real data posted in such a thread.\"
I will do my search and I need your help and the others too --> to find a product (for penile girth enhancement) which has:-1-The lowest risk of any complication.2-Permanency.3-The best aesthetic result.4-Lower cost.

Sorry, eqstudent, is the attached paper in support of your argument that Carruthers has done a 180 and is now against Artecoll? It seems in the paper to suggest that the method is safe, and that the late onset granulomas have responded successfully to treatment.

@smartman ' most of your questions posed to me are either rhetorical or need to be addressed to Dr Carruthers. I have no idea why his info on Silikon usage for HIV wasting has any bearing on this discussion of PMMA granuloma complication. The key point on Carruthers is that he was a huge Artefill supporter and now years later after the real patient experiences with late onset granulomas he seems to have done a 180.I think it is a good idea to start a new thread comparing the risks and complications of the different enlargement methods if that is your goal. I would certainly be interested in reading any real data posted in such a thread.

@smartman

Well done! An apples to apples comparison is what we are all after! Being aware of possible or foreseeable complications is always to our benefit as well as potential remedies. Thanks for the contribution!!!

There are no data on patients under chemotherapy. And as far as I know encapsulation is no immune reaction but wound healing ! Mikehok you are right , the only theoretical risk I think, would be a little less granulation tissue formation in these patients, e.g. a little harder implant. Encapsulation of microspheres is fibroblast activity - and this maybe slightly delayed under chemotherapy

With regard to my chemotherapy question, I wasn\'t really thinking it could cause FBG, quite the opposite. As I understand it the PMMA is mostly held in place by fibroblasts/collagen but there are also some macrophages at the scene ? I wonder if perhaps the fibroblasts would remain unaffected but not sure about the macrophages ?