TOPIC: Odds of success

So, of all you guys who\'ve had PMMA injected, and everyone else who have been following their posts like me, what would you guess is the likelyhood of developing issues with PMMA?
I know some issues are subjective (aesthetics, slight unevenness, ridges), those aren\'t what I\'m referring to. I\'m talking about large nodules, granulomas, pain, etc. Enough to make you wish you hadn\'t done it.
Is it as high as 50%? Less? More?
It seems like I read a few positive posts and I get amped for my appointment, then I read about someone\'s horrific experience and it makes me pause. Albeit, most horror stories seem to come from improper injection technique or not so good aftercare.
I have scoured this site and read everything twice. But I figure if all of you post your finds or theories as well, all the better.
I\'m being very realistic about my outcome. I\'m okay with some aesthetic imperfections. Hell, it might be an improvement, as my Dick is far from perfect now. At least I\'d have the size I\'d be comfortable with.
So what would you guys guess are the odds of getting a good outcome vs. bad outcome from PMMA?

\"Albeit, most horror stories seem to come from improper injection technique or not so good aftercare\"
I think the biggest cause is having too much material injected, and having too many rounds.
If your conservative and have no more than a couple of rounds of 10% 15 ml per round max I think your much less likly too have complications. And any complications you will get will be much more manageable.
If you have multiple rounds of 30% then get granulolas years later it will be like a minefield and very difficult to treat.

Crazy

I completely agree w/ Recklaw. I\'d also add that most of the complications have been seen in the last 2 years. Early posters prior to 2013 had very few problems. It\'s much more of a gamble now, as the product has obviously changed for the worse (both brands).

Restoration, why do you think the product\'s changed for the worse? what could cause that to happen i mean? is it not being manufactured the same?

I\'m thinking one round of 30%, waiting 6 months, another round of 10%, then a touch up round if need be. Or perhaps the 10% will be the touch up round, depending on my results. I would love 1\" gain, but I think whatever this plan gives me, I\'ll be happy.
As I\'ve stated, aesthetics is not my priority. Gains first, then aesthetics. I\'m married, & my wife is on board, but I\'m doing this for me. And I have a realistic goal that I will stick to. I\'m just trying to figure out the safest course of action.
Would 20% be a better choice? Does Dr. C even still do 20%?

number22 wrote: Restoration, why do you think the product\'s changed for the worse? what could cause that to happen i mean? is it not being manufactured the same?

If you read the journals going back to 2011, they were mostly success stories back then with VERY few complications. I think the # of complications has gone up quite a bit in the last 2 years. There is no technique difference at Avanti, so other than the product, what would it be?

I will agree with Restoration. It seems to me, that roughly 2 years ago (when I really started considering getting it), there was a massive spike in very poor results, from both doctors. I very much so think that at this time, there was quality issue. It seemed like we had quite a lot of guys having very little gains, or persistent swelling etc. I will say, the last 6 months or so, reports have been quite good in my opinion. I\'m very much considering having a round of 12-15 ml Flaccid hang. I think anyone going for 25+ ml is really risking major cosmetic and quality issue.

I had two procedures done in 2012. I didn\'t look at the syringes but I think the first procedure was done with new plastic (now Linnea safe) and the second with metacrill. Both procedures were done 10 and 20%. I\'ve always wondered if possibly metacrill was partly to blame for my worse results in round 2. i have nothing to back this up with and keep in mind that both dr C and dr N have been using metacrill for years. If metacrill is really lower quality then I\'m surprised they would continue to use it.

Another possibility for the worse results could be more guys opting for 30%. Dr C has always said you will get a better asthetic result using 10% and that 30% will feel less natural. It\'s possible that more guys were doing multiple rounds of 30% and that\'s why there was a higher incidence of reported issues. Around 2013-2014 there was a lot of hype around PMMA and lot of guys who wanted to maximize Girth. I remember the some of the moderators advising caution but there were plenty of other people saying \"go for it dude\". I dropped off this site around 2014 because it felt like to me that if I didn\'t have at least 6\" of Girth I was small. Others may have a different recollection than me but that\'s how it felt to me.

So maybe a number of people got the idea that this was a low risk procedure and tuned out the stuff they didn\'t want to hear. I could be way off base here but it seems as plausible as Dr C putting his reputation on the line by using some \"generic\" PMMA and claiming it was metacrill. That would be totally unethical and if proof (even circimstantial evidence) were posted here it could ruin his business.

@ imperial
I\'ve posted about this before, this is why it\'s important to ask every doctor to open, fill and administer the product right before you, so you can eliminate quality/quantity as a potential issue.

I recently started a new topic here \"10% vs 30%\" which is a poll that asks the members here who had PMMA to participate by sharing their satisfaction levels. Hopefully it will give us some good insight.