TOPIC: why dont they use pmma sheets?

Ya. I\'m thinking that may be the real issue. The sheet of PMMA idea in my mind would be perfect. No lumps or irregularities. The PMMA is held in place initially by its \"sheet/carrier\" and as it slowly absorbs and collagen formation kicks in you have a very even distribution of PMMA and subsequent collagen growth. The reason this probably isn\'t or won\'t be happening is a manufacturing/cost issue. Too bad.

Last time it was discussed, it was the exact same idea that bigdick1 is suggesting with a dissolveable scaffold. No one will be interested in it as it doesn\'t have any advantages over dermal matrix products. What is the difference between evenly spread PMMA and evenly spread dermal matrix?

bigdick1 wrote: I don\'t mean the entire \"sheet\" would be PMMA. I meant that the sheet would act as the carrier much like the fluid does currently. it could be made up of a biodegradable dissolveable substance that gets absorbed over several days leaving the PMMA beads in place for collagen to form around them the same as now. except the \"sheet\" would hold it in place and it could be evenly distributed without the unstable liquid which makes lumps and irregularities common at this point. a 30% would have more microspheres evenly distributed and a 10% would obviously have less microspheres but still evenly distributed. then after the \"sheet\" gets absorbed the PMMA spheres are left with collagen forming around them.make sense?

You got me with the dissolvable sheet that just carries the PMMA concentration evenly. This CAN be possible if the right research was done. But like hoodle said, you would need capital to study this and they\'re is less than a few that would be willing to fund it.

bigdick1 wrote: I don\'t mean the entire \"sheet\" would be PMMA. I meant that the sheet would act as the carrier much like the fluid does currently. it could be made up of a biodegradable dissolveable substance that gets absorbed over several days leaving the PMMA beads in place for collagen to form around them the same as now. except the \"sheet\" would hold it in place and it could be evenly distributed without the unstable liquid which makes lumps and irregularities common at this point. a 30% would have more microspheres evenly distributed and a 10% would obviously have less microspheres but still evenly distributed. then after the \"sheet\" gets absorbed the PMMA spheres are left with collagen forming around them.make sense?

I think it is a great idea. The sheet can be rolled and inserted into one incision no more then 0.5.75\" and then is can be spread out around the penile shaft insuring even distribution PMMA. BUT, I think, again I think, the body will not start the collagen process until the sheet carrier dissolves, and now the PMMA are loos and can move around, may be not, and they swill stay put...

Anyway I think it worth investigating, but I suspect there will be no VC ( venture capitalists) most likely will not fund this program...they are too stiff and closed minded...

I don\'t mean the entire \"sheet\" would be PMMA. I meant that the sheet would act as the carrier much like the fluid does currently. it could be made up of a biodegradable dissolveable substance that gets absorbed over several days leaving the PMMA beads in place for collagen to form around them the same as now. except the \"sheet\" would hold it in place and it could be evenly distributed without the unstable liquid which makes lumps and irregularities common at this point. a 30% would have more microspheres evenly distributed and a 10% would obviously have less microspheres but still evenly distributed. then after the \"sheet\" gets absorbed the PMMA spheres are left with collagen forming around them.make sense?

Guys... I feel like PMMA itself isn\'t a very good material to form into \"sheets\" anyway, the PMMA itself isn\'t the bulk of the gains we. It\'s the collagen that our body forms around the micro-spheres of the PMMA material that makes it work as a procedure.

A sheet of PMMA is a sheet of plexiglass not at all like a silicon implant. It\'s our collagen around the PMMA that gives it the \"rubbery\" feeling of a Dick. It\'s simply not the right kind of material for something like an implant. Plus I doubt our body would react the same way to a \"sheet\" of PMMA as it does the spheres.

Also don\'t forget that the higher concentrations of PMMA is actually used as a bone cement. How would you package a sheet to be the right concentration?

undecided wrote: I am hearing what your saying, hoddle, but isn\'t a breast implant a foreign object in your body too? That does not stop millions of women (at this day and age) from doing it. Yes, every surgery brings a risk of a surgery but that does not seem to me like a show-stopper.

But breasts aren\'t a dynamic organ. The penis is uniquely difficult to augment and surgery so often results in problems. Hence it\'s probably worth the risk of injecting a foreign body, if it avoids surgery. What you want is to not only risk surgery, but on top of that still have the long terms risks that come with PMMA. It\'s just not a good idea. In my opinion, PMMA is only worth doing if it avoids surgery. Otherwise all the problems we\'ve seen from scar tissue, infections and Necrosis etc from every other surgical option, wont be avoided with PMMA.

I am hearing what your saying, hoddle, but isn\'t a breast implant a foreign object in your body too? That does not stop millions of women (at this day and age) from doing it. Yes, every surgery brings a risk of a surgery but that does not seem to me like a show-stopper.

undecided wrote: But wouldn\'t it be on the same principal as scaffolding? They deglove the penis, add the implant and rolled it back over. I understood that the problem of scaffolding was that it dissolves over time so the procedure is kind of pointless considering the risks, price, effort etc. But something like PMMA scaffolds could actually work.

The biggest problem with scaffolding is all the people that have been damaged by the procedure itself. Surgery and the penis just don\'t mix well.

Allografts are a much better option that PMMA scaffolds in my opinion and they often lead to complications. The whole point of scaffold is that they produce your own tissue which wont be rejected. That makes it worth (if it worked) the risk of surgery. But a PMMA scaffold will still be a foreign body.

But wouldn\'t it be on the same principal as scaffolding? They deglove the penis, add the implant and rolled it back over. I understood that the problem of scaffolding was that it dissolves over time so the procedure is kind of pointless considering the risks, price, effort etc. But something like PMMA scaffolds could actually work.

Hmm. Ok

bigdick1 wrote: Why would it be a full surgery? just a tightly rolled sheet of PMMA inserted through a small incision. then once inside it could be unrolled under the skin much like a breast implant. it would be no different than what is currently being practiced as far as being invasive goes. am i missing something?

They\'ve tried doing that with allografts. The best they can do is pull two strips through. Though it sounds like it would be a relatively minor surgery, it\'s actually quite a big deal as a \"tunnel\" or \"pocket\" needs to be created, so the trauma to the penis will still cause retraction, scar tissue will still form and of course with any implant, the risk of infection is greater.

Why would it be a full surgery? just a tightly rolled sheet of PMMA inserted through a small incision. then once inside it could be unrolled under the skin much like a breast implant. it would be no different than what is currently being practiced as far as being invasive goes. am i missing something?

tend to agree with hoddle. one of the main attractions of PMMA is the absence of (invasive) surgery. perhaps there is another way of keeping the product more evenly distributed.

It\'s already been discussed and most thought it was a good idea. I think it\'s a bad idea, as I see surgery as the biggest risk factor in PE and that is the only reason I think a foreign body injection is preferable. The combination of a full surgery and a foreign material, is a bad idea in my opinion.