TOPIC: Use of Macrolane VRF 30 in Emicircumferential Penis Enlargement!

This could be some vital piece of information in regards a \'Macrolane Filler Technique\' pioneered by Prof. Giuseppe Sito, an Italian Professor of Plastic Surgery.

Published Study in Feb 2013

Use of Macrolane VRF 30 in Emicircumferential Penis Enlargement.Sito G, Marlino S, Santorelli A.SourceDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University Federico II, Naples, Italy.AbstractBACKGROUND:Penis enlargement is increasingly in demand. Methods for penis enlargement can be classified into surgical, nonsurgical (filling), and mechanical. Each method has shown only relatively successful results. A new formulation of injectable, stabilized, Hyaluronic Acid (HA)-based, nonanimal gel is available that may have applications for this use.OBJECTIVES:The authors propose a new technique for emicircumferential-injection filling of the penis and assess the safety and efficacy of this procedure compared with lipofilling.METHODS:The authors retrospectively reviewed the charts of 83 patients who underwent penis enlargement with either their HA-injection technique or lipofilling between December 2007 and July 2011. Safety, efficacy, and patient satisfaction were assessed.RESULTS:The circumferential enlargement obtained from both techniques ranged from 3.2 to 4.5 cm, with a decrement during Erection. In all patients, the increase in penis length ranged from 1.8 to 3.6 cm. No complications were seen in patients treated with HA, whereas 8 patients treated with lipofilling developed granuloma, and another experienced fat Necrosis. The vast majority (n = 72) of patients reported being \"very satisfied\" with the results.CONCLUSIONS:The ideal technique for penis enlargement should be nonsurgical, with a satisfactory and predictable result, a low rate of complications, and long-term stability. Emicircumferential enlargement with HA filler meets these requirements. However, results have been durable but not definitive, and repeated treatment (with associated costs) is necessary.

Demonstrative Video



Clinic\'s websitehttp://giuseppesito.it/falloplastica-galleria-fotografica.html

Looks promising .. Let\'s investigate it!!

The fact that a competent surgeon such as Dr. Viel has discontinued the macrolane procedure (which he performed for some time in the past) and refuses to experiment with Radiesse strongly suggests that these fillers are not the holy grail, at present. As of now we have only one case of positive feedback from the US on bioplasty via Radiesse (posted somewhere on the PhalloBoards); to be exact, we have one feedback on Radiesse, period. At the same time, note that we have had quite a number of positive feedbacks from FFT procedures, and still I would not go for it.

Unless, those who offer those procedures have developed a different technique. But the onus is on them to convince us with facts that this is indeed the case (videos, before/after pics, feedback from patients, reviews on forums, etc).Or may be, the temp filler which would provide the solution has not been created yet.

Gentlemen, be patient and continue your research.

I don\'t really think hyulorhonic acids are a good option based on the few reports we\'ve had. Also some sed cosmetic surgeons no longer use it. It seems to me FFT is more likely to give a better result and we all know what a lottery FFT is.

The other temp option is Radiesse, but I\'m not sure the advantages of this are as great as I first thought. I\'m sure I read that FBG\'s are more likely with Radiesse than PMMA. Obviously the advantage is that Radiesse eventually dissolves and thus the FBG should go away. However there are reports of Radiesse remaning for 2-3 years. So this could easily mean one has to live with a FBG for a long period of time. If a FBG is so terrible then surely one would want it removed asap, which would require the same surgery as removing a PMMA induced FBG. However, if the discomfort is bareable enough just to put up with it for a year or so, then couldn\'t one just accept that they must just accept a PMMA FBG and wait to see if it resloves of it\'s own accord as has been suggested in some of the literature posted here? I think there is a huge difference between injecting large volumes of high percentage PMMA and injecting an amount of 10% that would yield a result similar to a few syringes of Radiesse.

I agree with Supa. $2000 is cheap if there are no continuing healthcare costs and you maintain a healthy penis. PMMA might be cheap up front but there will be penis health problems over the long term. Paying healthcare costs then will not be cheap. In the long term temporary fillers are cheaper when ALL costs are considered.

The point is why pay like 2000 for six months of Girth... If you\'re that rich good for you.

I agree with you Supa

Personally, I don\'t care that it does not last long; on the contrary I find temporariness attractive as it means safety and allows me to re-evaluate the benefits from the experience so that I can choose to repeat it, if I so wish. On the contrary PMMA is basically irreversible and I am uncomfortable with such prospect at this juncture.

If it weren\'t for the fact that I do no trust FFT (nonnegligible risk of fat nodules, ie uneven contour), I would have gone for FFT already.

@ Michael: yes I know it is a temporary filler. The point is to highlight the filling technique he\'s using by separating the subcutaneous tissue just underneath the skin using a blunt cannula to achieve a symmetrical flawless cosmetic result. He is also injecting 40cc in one setting which I find interesting. Did you say that the guy you mentioned had it done by the same surgeon in Italy? Would you elaborate more and share his experience with us. Thanks

It doesn\'t last long...I know a guy who did it down there, didn\'t last long, same thing has happen with a lot of women, only lasts like 6 months even though they say 18 months, a waste of money. You will read bad reviews on how long it lasts everywhere!

PMMA might be cheap up front but there will be penis health problems over the long term

That we do not know, dear Musky. Long term risks to the penis are not known.PMMA has been used for a long time on other body parts; catastrophic failures have been documented (but then again, which surgeon, which product, which technique are all factors that matter), however, evidence on last generation products (eg Artefill) suggests that complication rates are low.

Having said that, it is a permanent solution. And its use on the penis is still experimental. You need to be comfortable with that.