Here is a post I made 6 years ago about why I saw PMMA as the best PE option at the time and why I thought the medical community should view it\'s application in the penis differently to in the face:
\"I think what you need to keep in mind is that you are highlighting the risks associated with PMMA and thus we compare it with doing nothing. A 3% (a pure guess, I\'m sure i read far lower) occurance of granuloma\'s may seem alot compared to the zero chance when not having PMMA. However, compared to the complications with FFT, Elist implant, Alloderm and Dermal grafts, it\'s a small percentage. The reason we are concerned about the chance of immune reaction or granuloma formation is that it could mean surgical removal is needed and it is in surgery that the greatest chance of serious damage to our penis\'s will occur. With every other option you have to have an initial surgery, which you don\'t with PMMA. The chances of infection with the Elist implant, alloderm or dermal grafts are much, much greater. The chance of serious nerve damage is also massively increased with surgery. Then there is the risk of fibrosis casing shortening, which PMMA doesn\'t have, but the other methods do. Hence straightaway, despite possible complications down the road, PMMA seems to be a lower risk option, as it avoids the pitfalls of surgery, which alone seem to have a far greater complication rate, than occurence of granulomas in PMMA.
PMMA means you\'ll avoid the dangers of the intial surgery, but I\'d also say it\'s the least likely method to require further reconstructive surgery if things go wrong. Given the dangers of surgery, the method that means you are least likely to need a second surgery, is likely to be the safest. Over the years I\'ve come across lots of guys who have required reconstructive surgery to remove lumpy FFT (i had this myself), partially absorbed dermal grafts, hardened alloderm and unnatural silicone implants. I\'d say as many as 25% of guys who have PE sugery will require a later reconstrucive surgery, again running lots of risks. Now if a small percentage of PMMA patients have granulomas or inflamatory rections later on, then surely that\'s much better than the percentage of guys requiring secondary surgery to fix problems at the moment. Some claim as many as 50% of Elists patients have to go back for further surgery and given the erosion seen in ED implants, it would seem likely that within 15 years, that isn\'t 100%.
People like Arnold Klein seem to be anti PMMA because it can\'t be removed and doesn\'t dissolve. Hence if something goes wrong, serious surgery is needed to cut it out. If you have PMMA in the face (Dr Klein specialises is facial fillers) and granulomas occur, the only way to get the out, is to cut them out, leaving serious scarring, badly disfiguring the patient. Hence he\'s anti PMMA. But is the penis like the face? Doesn\'t the penis have a surgical entry and exit point (ie the circumcision scar) that the face doesn\'t have. A surgeon can enter through the circ scar and peel the skin back, in the same way he does for most penis surgeries. Now obviously there is still the risk of damaging the facias and skin, which could cause necrosis. But those risks are also there in the even more likely event that one would require removal of alloderm of FFT. So when Dr Klein speaks out against PMMA, he obviously isn\'t doing so in comparison with other PE methods and the concerns he does have are more likely to be harder to correct in the face than the penis.
Unfortunately there just isn\'t a safe way to enlarge the penis. If there was PE surgery would be as popular as boob jobs. So all we can do is look for the safest method available. I believe that to be the method that offers acceptable results, but with least exposure to the surgeons knife. At the moment I believe that to be PMMA. I\'ve read every report I can find on the stuff, but did so knowing it was going to reveal lots of potential problems. However, I knew I had to compare these problems with other methods of PE and not to the safety of other minimally invasive cosmetci procedure such as Botox. From Dr Kleins point of view PMMA would seem to risky, but from a perspective PE candidate, it seems much safer. I think we all know the safest thing to do is not have anything done to our penis\'s, but sadly many of us are so consumed by the fact we feel as if we are lacking in that department, that by not doing something about it, we are arguably doing even more damage to our well being.\"
phalloplasty.proboards.com/thread/90/hea...e-casavantes?page=63
Since then, we\'ve seen hundreds of guys get PMMA. In my opinion, we\'ve only seen one really bad reaction (Restoration.) I\'m aware of two guys who had it removed and they both had the surgery I described in the post above. The Dr entered through the circ line, pulled the skin back and cut out the PMMA. Both guys saw their penis return to normal afterwards. That wouldn\'t happen in the face or buttocks etc. How can you get to the PMMA without cutting away at the tissue above? In my opinion neither guy actually required removal at that time either.
I\'m not trying to say PMMA has thus proven to be safe and everyone should go off and get it. I think most guys shouldn\'t get it and I don\'t really approve of large volume, high concentration procedures, which most guys get. However, if we followed a similar number of FFT, allograft or silicone implant patients over 6 years, I\'d confidently wager we\'d have seen a massively higher serious complication rate. I don\'t mean 20% or 30% but several multiples. In fact, in that time we\'ve seen loads of implant and allograft troubles, despite there only being a fraction as many guys reporting on those procedures.
I don\'t want to blow our trumpet, but I don\'t think people realize just how much Phalloboards has changed the world of cosmetic PE. The landscape now is entirely different to 6 years ago and that is largely down to PB\'s.
