TOPIC: Dr C. No longer offering Ellanse.

randomword1234 wrote: Chester, are you not concerns about granuloma, clumping, or nodule formation with Ellanse?.....

Replied to at phalloboards.websitetoolbox.com/post/ha-...69879?pid=1301803073

Mustang2020 wrote: My responses where made in considering ALL the options of Girth, PMMA, HA and Ellanse. I think H10 was talking about only Temp options and it makes sense.

I think this is the only way to evaluate it--considering ALL factors. I still can see why some guys would consider Ellanse to be a middle ground between HA and PMMA.

~LL

My responses where made in considering ALL the options of Girth, PMMA, HA and Ellanse. I think H10 was talking about only Temp options and it makes sense.

ll wrote: Not disagreeing with anything you said, just pointing out what seems obvious, that the question of \"why take the risk\" applies equally, if not more, to PMMA.

~LL

There is no reversable permanent option. I think there is merit in going the permanent route, despite the risks, hence I ended up doing it myself after 6 years of contemplation and trying HA. If there was a reversable option I\'d have certainly taken it, without a shadow of a doubt. But with temp fillers that option does exist, so I think if someone thinks that a temp solution suites them better, then don\'t risk going the non reversable route for the sake of an extra year of so.

All great points.

But the question was, why did Dr C choose to eliminate Ellanse as an offering so soon when the complications, as far as we know today, \"may\" not be as severe as when and if PMMA goes wrong?

May be they know something we don\'t know as of now. I am still of the opinion that there are some non medical (read business/cost, early patient satisfaction) reasons for their decision.

hoddle10 wrote: Why take the risk of something that can leave you in a terrible mental state for years?

Not disagreeing with anything you said, just pointing out what seems obvious, that the question of \"why take the risk\" applies equally, if not more, to PMMA.

~LL

ll wrote: I kind of agree, and if I were offered Voluma or Ellanse for free tomorrow, I\'d probably opt for Voluma for the reasons you give. On the other hand, I can at least see how some guys view it as a middle ground between HA and PMMA. They\'re hoping for a longer lasting result than HA with some collagen stimulation while at the same time NOT being completely permanent should things go wrong.

~LL

I totally understand that. But what I don\' think those guys or the Dr\'s who do the procedure realize is just how tough that 2 or 3 years will be if things go wrong and even then I\'ve read of people saying their Radiesse issues never went. When i said I was insanely depressed after being told to wait a couple of years for the fat to dissolve, I didn\'t mean just on hearing that news, but the entire 2 years. In fact I waited several years before having it removed.

I just get the impression that most guys think that if it goes wrong then they\'ll just have to stick it out for a couple of years, but if it really looks or feels that bad, then they are mentally going to be in for a much rougher ride than they realize. A few times I\'ve had people ask me about FFT Removal only months or weeks after having it injected. I\'ve tried explaining they need to at least wait a year, but they can\'t handle it. It might sound like they were being melodramatic, but honestly, in my experience its the most common response. Reklaw has even posted about his consults with Dr\'s regarding having his filler removed, just a couple of months after his procedure.

It\'s just one of those things you have to experience to truly understand and of course the guys looking a temp fillers that last several years and aren\'t reversable wont of. The same is true of Dr\'s offering the procedure.

Hence if you are going temporary, for the sake of an extra thousand bucks a year, you are much better off going with something that can be dissolved easily. I\'m not against long lasting/permanent fillers (i have the myself), but I\'m just saying, if you are going the temporary route, then do it the safest way possible, as that is surely the key reason for wanting something temporary. Why take the risk of something that can leave you in a terrible mental state for years?

hoddle10 wrote: A good example of why I think Ellanse is a bad option would be what I experienced with FFT. When I went to my surgeon and told him I wanted it removed, he told me not to bother and that within two years it will all have absorbed anyway. This didn\'t actually happen. However, I assumed what the Dr told me was true and even knowing that I only had to wait a couple of years, I was still insanely depressed. This isn\'t an unusual reaction either. I doubt Reklaw is particularly happy having to wait years for his stuff to absorb. It\'s normal and I don\'t think that has been considered sufficiently. A temporary solution that lasts any longer than a year has to be reversable in my opinion or is a bad option.

I kind of agree, and if I were offered Voluma or Ellanse for free tomorrow, I\'d probably opt for Voluma for the reasons you give. On the other hand, I can at least see how some guys view it as a middle ground between HA and PMMA. They\'re hoping for a longer lasting result than HA with some collagen stimulation while at the same time NOT being completely permanent should things go wrong.

~LL

H10\'s words are wise.
He was being modest when he said I wasn\'t particularly happy.

A good example of why I think Ellanse is a bad option would be what I experienced with FFT. When I went to my surgeon and told him I wanted it removed, he told me not to bother and that within two years it will all have absorbed anyway. This didn\'t actually happen. However, I assumed what the Dr told me was true and even knowing that I only had to wait a couple of years, I was still insanely depressed. This isn\'t an unusual reaction either. I doubt Reklaw is particularly happy having to wait years for his stuff to absorb. It\'s normal and I don\'t think that has been considered sufficiently. A temporary solution that lasts any longer than a year has to be reversable in my opinion or is a bad option.

Is it possible it is a cost issue for Dr C? Is it possible they feel a lot more knowledgeable/comfortable with PMMA than with new Ellanse?

PMMA is permanent and Removal is a very serious surgery where as with Ellanse while as you say 3 years is a very long time, is still less serious than PMMA if they were nodules and ridges issues and Removal is needed.

It just seems to me that they are offering so many new options now and to eliminate Ellanse, there has to be some very good reasons some of which H10 has touched on..

I guess one can ask the office directly and perhaps they will respond with a more clear answer.

I wonder if it\'s because these issues are as hard to deal with with temporary fillers as they are with permanent fillers, thus not making it work the extra cost. With HA you can just dissolve it with hyaluronidase, but you can\'t do that with Radiesse or Ellanse. You have to wait for it to dissolve and I\'ve read of cases where patients still have issue\'s with Radiesse years later, despite the fact it\'s only meant to last up to 18 months.

In my honest opinion, I don\'t think the Ellanse thing has been thought through properly. If you are going the temp route then I\'d say stick with HA. I know Dr Oates has been experimenting with Ellanse, but I think it\'s reasonable to ask him if he\'s actually contacted members who have had issues with fillers and asked them about their experiences and if a two or three year filler is a good idea. Because I\'m telling you from my own experience, two or three years of issues can seem like a life sentence and I know many would opt for surgical Removal. So from that point of view, given the added expense, is it worth it compared to PMMA?

Personally I just think Ellanse is pandering to patient demand and these patients don\'t really know how they\'d react to if things don\'t go well. HA has its draw backs, but the fact it\'s reversable makes it a much better option in my opinion.

That really doesn\'t make sense to me.

Mustang2020 wrote:
Interesting. PMMA causes nodules, bumps and ridges in many cases but they still offer it!

Yeah i thought that was the norm for PMMA

ioannis519 wrote: So I got an email from wade saying that they have been seeing reports that Ellanse is causing nodules and inflammation and that they no longer are using it for Girth enhancement.

Interesting. PMMA causes nodules, bumps and ridges in many cases but they still offer it!