TOPIC: PMMA or Ellanse?

@Androfill

You seem to promote HA over Ellanse for safety reasons. How many Ellanse procedures have you done so far?

It's definitely worth taking into consideration that PMMA would prevent you from having anything in the future, some guys on here are in their teens, if I were in that boat I'd be tempted by Ellanse.

Well said think. Totally agree with you.

I agree that in the short term (say 4 years), you are equally fucked should something go wrong. In that regard, I agree with everything @biggy says above, including the fact that reactions are caused by dormant conditons that can show up years later. This is a fact. Hoddle10 made this point, and for this reason he favored PMMA (and actually had it done). I have tremendous respect for him and his opinions and approaches to all things PE related. I can\'t believe he was degloved 3 times. However, this is one area where I tend to disagree. I don\'t think because the short term risks are the same that this is a good reason to just screw it and go with PMMA, which is truly permanent.There are definitely risks with Ellanse, and we currently only have 2 documented cases, and zero long term cases to look at. Formal studies on Ellanse are relatively small. However, it has been used since 2009, and although you can find some complaints on plastic surgery forums with lumps or aesthetics, things like granulomas have been rare. There was one published case I found that said they were the first case reported. Of course, there may be others that were not reported (Dr. Oats had one and I don\'t think he reported it), but I don\'t think it\'s widespread. Furthermore, we\'re talking about PCL, which has been studied going back to the 80s, and is FDA approved for other in-body applications, like drug release devices, and other implants. I read lots of studies that describe it as very biocompatible, non-immunogenic, and having only \"mild adverse reactions\". It\'s being considered for all kinds of tissue engineering applications, and I recently posted one where it was being considered for tunica reconstruction. The science behind its bio-degrading lifetime and properties is well known--if you have the 4 year version, it will degrade in about that time.So yes, in the short term, I consider the risks pretty close to those of PMMA. The two advantages I see with Ellanse have to do with the long term. I am pretty sure someone (I think Smalljay) asked Dr. Gary Alter and another well known doctor about the long term effects of PMMA, and said they were both \"underwhelmed\" regarding possible health risks. However, let me quote Dr. Gary Alter\'s response to Cassavantes PMMA study:

\"No one knows the long-term implications of PMMA micro-spheres in the penis. I hope we won\'t be seeing problems decades from now. As the investigators state, Removal of the PMMA is difficult or impossible.\"

He is literally saying \"decades.\" Well, it\'s bad enough to have a lingering concern over the next 4 years or so, but I don\'t want that for decades! Time flies, guys... and although 4 years can be a really long time if you\'re fucked, it isn\'t decades. In 4 years or so, the Ellanse will be gone, and just how much of the collagen you still have remains to be seen. But should a future method, better than Ellanse or PMMA come up, you will be in a better place with regard to considering future options. Or just go with Ellanse again for another 4 years if it served you well. It will still be more cost effective than HA, although more risky.

I think I read every single progress report before deciding on PMMA. Lots were several years old. Yet the only two examples I found that required surgical intervention were Darkstaff and Restoration. In both cases their issues started within the first year. DS after about 6 months and Restoration pretty much straightaway. So from that perspective it\'s hard to see the advantage of Ellanse, especially the 3 or 4 year versions.

Also I don\'t think Darkstaff received the correct treatment. He went for surgery way too soon. I don\'t think he got a steroid shot to the area and I don\'t think he had antibiotics.

Gg82 wrote:
Hoddle10 had a really good point about this one.
While it is true, and for the long term i would get Ellanse for this specific reason, you have to consider that short term complications for Ellanse and PMMA are basically the same.
Things like granulomas, infections, lumps etc. you can\'t live with for 4 years (or more, because we don\'t actually know if it lasts more than that) so you would have to take the exact same medical measures to solve them, unless you would accept to live with them for years.

Just food for thoughts.

Dr Morganstern claims to be able to remove lumps of any filler that isn't synthetic using a non surgical technique, it's a bold claim but I will soon find out if it's a scam in November, something to think about if your considering Ellanse.

I guess one more advantage of Ellanse is that if there are some amazing developments in the world of Phalloplasty over the next 5-10 years you may still be able to make the most of them. Committing to PMMA now may reduce your chance of being suitable for other more effective methods in the future? Just playing devil\'s advocate but really trying to understand and make an informed decision.

Ellanse
- If things look terrible then its not for the rest of your life!

Hoddle10 had a really good point about this one.
While it is true, and for the long term i would get Ellanse for this specific reason, you have to consider that short term complications for Ellanse and PMMA are basically the same.
Things like granulomas, infections, lumps etc. you can\'t live with for 4 years (or more, because we don\'t actually know if it lasts more than that) so you would have to take the exact same medical measures to solve them, unless you would accept to live with them for years.

Just food for thoughts.

mediatps wrote:
It seems to me that Aesthetically Ellanse is able to produce slightly more desirable results as the moulding process is easier. PMMA is totally dependent on the amount of PMMA beads that end up in each place after the carrier is dissolved which is much harder to judge in the moulding process. I imagine with Ellanse, you mould the filler into the right place over the first few days and you shouldn\'t have any unwanted surprises later on. Yes from a problem point of view both fillers should be seen as permanent, I understand that but in terms of achieving perfect aesthetics that isn\'t going to make you wish you never had anything done isn\'t Ellanse slightly better for that? Correct me if im wrong.

Ellanse is softer and so any ridges or bumps shouldn\'t be so obvious to the touch. Any mistake with PMMA would be pretty noticeable. That is what I would say is the advantage of Ellanse.

But then having a well moulded firmer Cock from PMMA is obviously desirable there is just more of a risk in getting it.

Also I don\'t know if I am being completely stupid going with a doctor in Italy that lets face it, know one really knows anything about. Superman swears by him but that is only one example we have. We don\'t know if something went wrong he would just disappear and not respond.

WHo told you Ellanse was softer or easier to mould? There are different percentages of PMMA. 10% will be softer than 30%. Effectively Ellanse and PMMA are pretty much the same in how they work. They are both particles placed in a carrier. As the carrier absorbs the particles get surrounded by the bodies own collagen. I\'m not sure why you\'d expect the collagen created by Ellanse to be any different to that created by PMMA. Surely that is dependent on the density of the particles and that is down to the ratio of particles to the carrier.

In terms of aesthetics, that\'s why it\'s advisable to have small amounts injected. The reason I\'m interested in the Italian Dr is because I have a small dent and want it filled in. Had I had a larger volume I could have had worse aesthetic issues.

My concerns over the Italian Dr were that he uses a needle, we\'ve only seen one result, we\'ve seen no Circumcised results. HOwever, your post has raised another bigger worry for me, which is that he is prepared to inject you with more PMMA just 2 weeks after your first round. That\'s plain wrong of him in my opinion.

chester wrote: I\'m also not going to tell you what option to choose, however if I was in the same position, this wouldn\'t even be a decision for me. I\'d go right to Ellanse. You missed a multitude of PMMA disadvantages and Ellanse advantages. So many to list, and they\'re all covered in any of the Ellanse threads. Good luck regardless of which you choose.

What would you say these are?

biggy wrote: There is no history at all of Ellanse used in high volume. No one knows what the complication rate will be and it\'s highly unlikely to be better than PMMA, which to date seems remarkable. There are loads of members who have had PMMA for over 3 years. There isn\'t a single example of anyone requiring Removal or surgery. Just like in all the studies, serious problems tend to be reported within the first year or most usually within weeks. So Ellanse has no advantage over PMMA. Also there is a school of thought that suggests reactions to fillers are largely the result of dormant infections that take weeks, month or even years to show. If that happens with Ellanse after a year, then you can\'t simply wait for it dissolve. There are no advantages to Ellanse other than if you live in a part of the world which makes flying to get PMMA too difficult.

The main advantage of Ellance is that it seems to give some guys peace of mind built on a totally false premise. We\'ve got 2 forums full of progress reports. NAme me one member who has reported a serious issue that required a serious intervention that occurred over a year after the procedure? If you can\'t, then explain the advantage of having Ellanse if you have a serious issue within the first year? If you can\'t do that, then explain why on earth the advantage of Ellanse is, unless you live near Dr Oates?

It seems to me that Aesthetically Ellanse is able to produce slightly more desirable results as the moulding process is easier. PMMA is totally dependent on the amount of PMMA beads that end up in each place after the carrier is dissolved which is much harder to judge in the moulding process. I imagine with Ellanse, you mould the filler into the right place over the first few days and you shouldn\'t have any unwanted surprises later on. Yes from a problem point of view both fillers should be seen as permanent, I understand that but in terms of achieving perfect aesthetics that isn\'t going to make you wish you never had anything done isn\'t Ellanse slightly better for that? Correct me if im wrong.

Ellanse is softer and so any ridges or bumps shouldn\'t be so obvious to the touch. Any mistake with PMMA would be pretty noticeable. That is what I would say is the advantage of Ellanse.

But then having a well moulded firmer Cock from PMMA is obviously desirable there is just more of a risk in getting it.

Also I don\'t know if I am being completely stupid going with a doctor in Italy that lets face it, know one really knows anything about. Superman swears by him but that is only one example we have. We don\'t know if something went wrong he would just disappear and not respond.

mediatps wrote: Any advice would be greatly appreciated. I am ready to pull the trigger but just not sure which way to aim. I am worried that If I go the Ellanse route I will just be conscious that over the next 4 years I will be slowly returning back to normal which means I won\'t ever feel completely comfortable.

Money isn\'t really an issue although obviously PMMA being cheaper is an advantage.

Help guys!?

As a man who doing PE for the last 5 years I can definitely say: someday you just give up and say \"fuck this\". I\'m so tired of searching, reading and doing every kind of this PE shit just to make my penis slightly bigger. So from my perspective, I\'d go only for PMMA. If there were other more safe and permanent procedures for Girth, I\'d consider them. But as HA, Radiesse and Ellanse are not permanent, I don\'t even looking at these options, because it would give you obsession in your mind, that you need to get this procedure over and over again, while your size will very slowly shrinking.

There is no history at all of Ellanse used in high volume. No one knows what the complication rate will be and it\'s highly unlikely to be better than PMMA, which to date seems remarkable. There are loads of members who have had PMMA for over 3 years. There isn\'t a single example of anyone requiring Removal or surgery. Just like in all the studies, serious problems tend to be reported within the first year or most usually within weeks. So Ellanse has no advantage over PMMA. Also there is a school of thought that suggests reactions to fillers are largely the result of dormant infections that take weeks, month or even years to show. If that happens with Ellanse after a year, then you can\'t simply wait for it dissolve. There are no advantages to Ellanse other than if you live in a part of the world which makes flying to get PMMA too difficult.

The main advantage of Ellance is that it seems to give some guys peace of mind built on a totally false premise. We\'ve got 2 forums full of progress reports. NAme me one member who has reported a serious issue that required a serious intervention that occurred over a year after the procedure? If you can\'t, then explain the advantage of having Ellanse if you have a serious issue within the first year? If you can\'t do that, then explain why on earth the advantage of Ellanse is, unless you live near Dr Oates?

I\'m also not going to tell you what option to choose, however if I was in the same position, this wouldn\'t even be a decision for me. I\'d go right to Ellanse. You missed a multitude of PMMA disadvantages and Ellanse advantages. So many to list, and they\'re all covered in any of the Ellanse threads. Good luck regardless of which you choose.

Nobody is going to tell you which option to choose, all I can say is that if I had the option of both, I'd be tempted to go to Italy, but I have less to lose because my previous procedure made my penis irreversibly worse than it was before.