smalljay wrote:
Restoration wrote: At 9:20 holy shit...
But that\'s gotta be non-sterile stuff and mineral oil, silicone, right...?
I hate that they keep saying \"it\'s great right away but wait 5-10 years..\" nobody\'s here 5-10 years post pmma. There\'s got to be some way to know though. I mean, a skin biopsy at a future point would show abnormalities. Any volunteers?
Technically, SmartMan is right around 5 years as he got his PMMA in 2008 (although he got it in Brazil, not with Dr. C).
Also, if we want to fully believe the claims of Dr C and Wade, they apparently have seen no major complications with PMMA since their first penile biopsy 8 years ago...of course take that with a grain of salt, but maybe it will make you and other patients feel better. I hope it does. Relax and enjoy your dicks!
In my experience patients rarely return to the Dr where they had the procedure if things go badly. A few months ago I asked some patients of Brian Rosenthal if they\'d reported back to him after either problems or disappointing results and none had.
As regards this thread, there was a documentary on in the UK this week called \"botched bodies\" and part of it was about problems with permanent fillers in the face. The main problem seemed to be how to cut it out without deforming the face. The same would be true of the buttocks. But this isn\'t the case with the penis, as it\'s injected into the fascia and there is a perfect access point through the circ scar. However, I think if too much injected and it becomes attached to things other than the fascia, then would could face skin loss.
This is what I wrote 3 years ago about one of the reasons I favoured PMMA over other methods and why US Dr\'s hostility to permanent fillers wasn\'t such a concern for me:
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.
phalloplasty.proboards.com/thread/90/hea...e-casavantes?page=63
Last year we had a member who had PMMA removed via the method I described above and there is no sign anything has been done:
phalloboards.websitetoolbox.com/post/my-...ly-6196342?&trail=90
Now this doesn\'t mean it\'s safe to go and have loads of PMMA injected, but to my mind there are some advantages, in terms of removal, when it\'s in the penis compared to other areas like the buttocks or face.
