TOPIC: PMMA Ninja Turtle - Retraction Problems for GROWERS

@Hunk,

What were your Girth measurements pre-PMMA? What are your measurements now? How many cc\'s total?

The same effect would likely happen with big gains on a Grower no matter what % was used in my opinion.... PMMA tissue is thicker than normal tissue and I\'d bet would give the same effect regardless of percent used with the same gains (ie, 4 x 10% rounds vs. 1 x 30% rounds).

True, going into it at 4.5\" EG if I was told I\'d get 5.5\" EG and that was the limit I would have been happy with that. I remember pumping that big and thinking it was huge. Another issue is that there are other Doc\'s like Dr. N who do 30% only with big sessions. I think a lot of people here pointed to Dr. N\'s work as evidence that its ok for Dr. C to do the same type stuff. I agree though, if he was more stern in keeping to his original approach (enhancement vs. pure enlargement) there would be less issues here.

I never get the PMMA TMNT issue but 30% just doesn\'t feel as smooth and natural as lower concentrations. My shortest measurement Flaccid is 6.5\". My only hope is that I haven\'t opened a \"can of worms\" with this and a final touchup session will resolve the issues I\'m having. If I could go back in time, I would stick with 10% for every session no matter how many sessions were required. Just my 2'.

I think you got the wrong procedure. You should have had some tacking done, as they do for buried penis.

The more I see of 30%, the more it reminds me of FFT. Obviously it\'s much firmer than fat, but they are both palpable and seem to create similar aesthetic issues. Your photos look like a classic FFT procedure.

Hi Miracle,

Glad to hear you never retract. That\'s an impressive Flaccid measurement, most of us would like that as BPEL...

I agree with you that 30% doesn\'t feel as all as smooth or as natural as lower concentrations. Even 20% was alright, but 10% felt like the original. I wish I had stayed with 10% all the way. Last September I hadn\'t heard back from anyone else that 30% felt different and was way less flexible. This makes for a very difficult aesthetic when Flaccid, which also makes the shaft more likely to be noticed as a vulgar artificial implant - defeating the purpose of having \"stealth\" PMMA enhancement.

I think my only chance now is to fly to Seoul, South Korea to get in a few sessions of Lippen-P glans enhancement, hoping that if it is wider that it won\'t be able to be sucked up inside the shaft?!? If you have any ideas of what might be done, I\'m game. I don\'t feel like getting degloved just to start over the entire PMMA process.

HC

Hi Hoddle,


Yes, my condition made the surgeon in Russia look in dismay at the ugly botch job I was bringing into his clinic. The nurse also tried hard to look away, and hid her reaction out of courtesy, but I could tell they were not exactly impressed at such a result. You say that my result looks a lot like FFT except for being quite hard, like rubber. This in fact makes it feel even more artificial than FFT. Also, if you just wait for a few months, FFT winds up gone. Not so for my result which can only be dealt with by surgical degloving at considerable expense and trauma.


I am very interesting in what you call \"tacking\" as I have never heard about this before. Although I have pretty much read most of what was written in PhalloBoards v1 and PhalloBoards v2. Could you tell me more about how it works? Does the surgeon anchor the implant to the pelvis, or something like that? Or do they use \"tacks\" to prevent it from retracting and Turtling? If so I\'d be game!


What I must now reluctantly call THE IMPLANT seems to be floating upwards towards my glans, leaving the base quite barren. I wonder if it cannot be detached from the inner shaft beneath it, and slid downwards towards the pelvis? If so Dr C could then use 10% to fill out the then empty tip section, which would become flexible again allowing it to shrink down when retracting.


Thanks in advance for any additional info. I am quite alarmed at having this surprise result - looking very identifiably as a \"Surgically Modified Dick\", in such an obvious way that it almost makes me miss the thick clumpy clusters inside a soft Dick after session 2. I am worried about the reactions of several girlfriends who haven\'t seen me this way, and I hesitate to date others who will notice that I am wearing under my skin a rubbery artificial dildo.


HC

Watch the video at the bottom of this page from 2.00 mins to 3.30 mins. It shows the skin being tacked to the base of the penis. This prevents skin sliding forward and creating the \"pig in blanket\" look.

www.savaperovic.com/penis-enlargement-surgery.html#vdo

It seems to me that 30% is also more mobile, again like fat. This means that when the skin bunches up, the PMMA squeezes into a ball and looks bad. It will be more apparent in uncut guys, as their skin is more mobile, but also true for guys such as yourself who have had a slightly aggressive circ, which causes for the pubic area to move up the shaft.

I don\'t want to cause any controversy, as I know member senior members of the site have so much respect for him and a very good relationship, but I think their is so much wrong with Dr C\'s practice.

@HC
I will be in contact with Wade shortly to discuss my concerns which include the palpability and unnatural texture of the 30% PMMA. I will let you know what he has to offer afterwards. I imagine that the doctor can soften hardened areas using the cannula to break up clusters of beads and then cover with 10% to mask the artificial feel of the underlying product. Either way, no more 30% for this man. 10% all the way.

Thank God I only received 7cc\'s of 30%. I couldn\'t imagine having a full session! It\'d be akin to walking with a brick in your pants.

Obviously it isn\'t my business and I know you have a great relationship with Dr C and Wade, but I really hope they don\'t charge you for any further procedure. My big issue with them is they aren\'t anywhere near conservative enough given the experimental nature of the procedure and ultimately it\'s the patients that pay, often both physically and financially. It\'s damn expensive to keep flying to Mexico, staying in hotels and paying for more PMMA. That\'s not to mention the massive inconvenience. I\'m not in anyway doubting Dr C\'s integrity, as by all reports he\'s a really great guy and clearly a very sed practitioner, but as I\'ve said many time there are some issues that I strongly feel they need to sort out and the 30% thing is just the latest.

Didn\'t Dr C switch to 30% based on our own demands here? Everyone was so concerned that 20% was causing issues and that he wasn\'t mixing it right, or that it wasn\'t supposed to be mixed in the first place. 30% was all the rage even 6 months ago. Everyone seemed to praise it. Not only that but there were a lot of members unhappy with 10% saying they gained very very little. Myself included which I gained nothing from a full session in Round 3 of 10%. 10% seemed to produce results for the first round, but following rounds I remember a few complaints of no gains.

I\'m not sure having 10% rounds is the way to go either... not unless people actually like spending $2000+ on only 0\" - 0.25\" gains per session.

@Hoddle
Wade said that there is no charge for fixing complications (nodules, FBG, etc). If more PMMA is used, then there is a charge based on the amount of filler used. I still believe Dr. Casavantes performs excellent work and that patient anatomy, postoperative care, reaction to implant, etc weigh heavily on the final outcome.

@Sizemic
It was speculated that the titration of 10% and 30% to arrive at 20% was a major culprit in aesthetic issues. I don\'t believe that\'s the case (see above). If all one cares about is size then 30% is the way to go but the end result will in no way feel natural. In my eyes, this defeats the purpose. I\'m married, but if I were single, I\'d be way too timid and reluctant to attempt to pass my unit off as \"just lucky, I guess\" even barring any visual oddities. I\'ve received all three concentrations and I agree completely with Hoddle10. I postulate 15% would be the ideal concentration for use in the penis. Sure, the gains won\'t be as great, but the end result is more natural and more easily dealt with in future rounds. Some got pretty good gains from 10%. And FWIW, in the manual PE realm, a 1/4\" Erect gain is pretty damn impressive indeed.

Sizemic wrote: Didn\'t Dr C switch to 30% based on our own demands here? Everyone was so concerned that 20% was causing issues and that he wasn\'t mixing it right, or that it wasn\'t supposed to be mixed in the first place. 30% was all the rage even 6 months ago. Everyone seemed to praise it. Not only that but there were a lot of members unhappy with 10% saying they gained very very little. Myself included which I gained nothing from a full session in Round 3 of 10%. 10% seemed to produce results for the first round, but following rounds I remember a few complaints of no gains.

I\'m not sure having 10% rounds is the way to go either... not unless people actually like spending $2000+ on only 0\" - 0.25\" gains per session.

Unless of course Dr C stays true to his original opinion, that PMMA should be seen as an enhancement and not an enlargement. The current procedure completely contradicts what he originally outlined, which was a conservative approach of 10-12cc, followed by a touch up if necessary. Again, I don\'t want to be controversial or offend Dr C, Wade and their many happy patients, but I\'m pretty damn sure that was what Dr C said to those originally looking into the procedure.

@hoddie, you are right, his original approach (and I believe desired approach) was very different than what people are asking for today.

When I got round 1 it was unheard of to go over 20cc in one session. I got 22cc and judging by their reactions in the room it was one of the highest volume procedures they had done. It wasn\'t even entirely 20% either.

His original approach was 15cc - 20cc usually per round. Of mostly 20%.

Then he started using mostly 10% and patients seemed to gain just as much in their first rounds with it. BUT, during following rounds people gained far less and some were unhappy with only gaining 0.1\" or 0.2\" in their procedures.

Then some longer guys on the forum started getting 25+cc rounds (I remember some were 28cc or more... even 32cc?) of 20% and 10%.

Then people starting blaming the 20% and the fact that its mixed as to why some people have poor aesthetic results, chances for infection etc.

He started using 30% because everyone seemed to want un-altered product thinking it would give more gains and a better aesthetic result.

He phased out 20% completely it seems after New Plastic changed to Linuea Safe. But he continues to do high volume rounds of 30% it seems now.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like that\'s how this all progressed? He is just giving people what they are asking for... at least it seems that way. People keep pushing the envelope. I\'ve never had 30% though so I can\'t really say if its good or not.

Sizemic wrote: @hoddie, you are right, his original approach (and I believe desired approach) was very different than what people are asking for today.

When I got round 1 it was unheard of to go over 20cc in one session. I got 22cc and judging by their reactions in the room it was one of the highest volume procedures they had done. It wasn\'t even entirely 20% either.

His original approach was 15cc - 20cc usually per round. Of mostly 20%.

Then he started using mostly 10% and patients seemed to gain just as much in their first rounds with it. BUT, during following rounds people gained far less and some were unhappy with only gaining 0.1\" or 0.2\" in their procedures.

Then some longer guys on the forum started getting 25+cc rounds (I remember some were 28cc or more... even 32cc?) of 20% and 10%.

Then people starting blaming the 20% and the fact that its mixed as to why some people have poor aesthetic results, chances for infection etc.

He started using 30% because everyone seemed to want un-altered product thinking it would give more gains and a better aesthetic result.

He phased out 20% completely it seems after New Plastic changed to Linuea Safe. But he continues to do high volume rounds of 30% it seems now.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like that\'s how this all progressed? He is just giving people what they are asking for... at least it seems that way. People keep pushing the envelope. I\'ve never had 30% though so I can\'t really say if its good or not.

That\'s by far my main gripe. I\'ve said it on a number of occasions before, but this procedure shouldn\'t be driven by consumer demand. Dr C has to set firm parameters in my opinion and some sort of patient profiling needs to be done.

I think he should simply outline the procedure he offers and let guys take it or leave it. You love your new penis, but had Dr C insisted on one round and a top up, would you not still be really happy? It\'s only because you know the option is there that you crave more and more. 4 years ago, if you were told you\'d gain an Inch in Girth from a procedure that cost $4000 and involved two trips to TJ spaced 2 months apart, with virtually no down time, wouldn\'t you have jumped at the chance?