TOPIC: HA Dissolving too quickly

My HA experience has not been good. I am posting this to inform others about HA quickness to dissolve.

Hello All,

I have been lurking here for awhile, if I was to put a time line on it I would say since January of 26. Originally I had a procedure scheduled by a provider that wanted to fill me with their own concoction of silicone oil. After looking in this forum and consulting with Dr Carney at Rejuvall I cancelled the appointment and scheduled with Rejuvall.

Dr Carney suggest that I go with HA (Revanesse) first to avoid gramulomas. As your body will attack foreign matter by default. However if it attacks the HA the results will not be permanently and there would be a good chance on the 2nd session with Bellafill I will not develop gramulomas. I knew HA was temporary so I asked how long does it last and the answer was 6 to 12 months depending on the patient. So I scheduled my appointment in March 2026 to receive 15.6 mL of Revanesse.

Fast forward to May and it seems that I am already back close to my original size. 6 months haven’t passed yet and my stats decrease significantly. To me HA is not a good temporary solution. The way it dissolves is too quick for me. If I could choose again I would go straight PMMA. It seems like the gramulomas fade over time or be corrected by an additional PMMA session. Here are the pic and time lines and all pic are I’m my Flaccid state. When Erect my Girth increases by .25.

1. Girth 4.75 pre procedure

2.1 week after injection Girth 6.25

3. In April Girth 6.0

4. In May Girth less than 5.5

@Thinkbig that is very odd, and I'm so sorry to hear you've experienced this. While I do wish you would have reached out to us directly first to make things right, I'm glad to have been made aware of this issue regardless. I'm going to present your case to Dr. Carney when I speak to him this afternoon and someone on our team should be in touch with you soon. Please feel free to DM me in the meantime with any questions or further information about your case.

Ok thanks btw I wasn't bad mouthing your practice, I was just letting people know what could happen.

@Thinkbig can you please DM me with your full name ASAP so Dr. Carney can look at your chart? Thanks!

I had exactly the same situation with a different provider. HA went away WAY too fast. I did follow up with PMMA and frankly had a huge response as far as size response compared to the amount of PMMA versus HA. Actually more than I was looking for. Don't know if it was related to the mixing of the products but overall I am happy. My last PMMA treatment was about 2 years ago. I had 4 HA treatments before PMMA. My results have been fairly stable since about 6 months after the PMMA. Best of luck on your journey.

jon11 wrote: I had exactly the same situation with a different provider. HA went away WAY too fast. I did follow up with PMMA and frankly had a huge response as far as size response compared to the amount of PMMA versus HA. Actually more than I was looking for. Don't know if it was related to the mixing of the products but overall I am happy. My last PMMA treatment was about 2 years ago. I had 4 HA treatments before PMMA. My results have been fairly stable since about 6 months after the PMMA. Best of luck on your journey.

Jon,

Thanks for your insight on this matter. So I am curious on why did you get 4 HA treatments if it was dissolving so fast? Why not just go PMMA the 2nd time around?

Honestly, just wasn't ready for the permanent commitment PMMA represents. It all worked out.

Hi, @Thinkbig

We’re sorry to hear that you’re disappointed with your early result, and we understand why the change between the first week and now would feel discouraging.

Dr. Carney reviewed the photos and timeline you shared as well as your medical chart, and based on that information, he does not believe this represents rapid loss of the HA itself. What you are describing appears much more consistent with a strong inflammatory response after injection, followed by that swelling gradually settling down.

That distinction matters.

The size you measured one week after injection was not the expected final HA result. A significant portion of that early increase was almost certainly inflammation and post-procedure swelling. Once that swelling resolved, the more accurate question is how much true girth increase remained.

In your case, Dr. Carney believes your final result is consistent with the amount of HA placed and your individual anatomy. Your shaft length is above average, which means the filler had to be distributed across a longer surface area. When the same amount of filler is spread across a longer shaft, the increase in circumference will be smaller than it would be for someone with less length and the same volume of product. That is why your retained gain is closer to ¼ inch rather than the larger early measurement you saw during the inflammatory phase.

This is also why Dr. Carney does not believe that “going straight to PMMA” would have been the safer or better choice.

The fact that you saw such a large early increase, and that the swelling remained noticeable beyond the initial recovery period (2 weeks vs 1 week), suggests your body had a stronger-than-usual inflammatory reaction to the injection process/material. HA is temporary, reversible, and generally more forgiving. PMMA creates a much stronger and more permanent inflammatory response because it is designed to stimulate collagen around permanent microspheres. If your body reacted this strongly to HA, then starting with PMMA first would likely have carried a much higher risk of a significant negative reaction, including nodules, granulomas, firmness, irregularity, prolonged inflammation, or a repair situation.

We also want to gently push back on the idea that PMMA granulomas simply “fade over time” or can always be corrected with another PMMA session. Sometimes minor contour issues can improve or be managed, but true granulomas and inflammatory complications can be much more serious, uncomfortable, and difficult to treat. Penile enhancement repair now makes up about half of the procedures we perform each month, including complications from fillers, silicone, implants, and poorly planned enhancement work. So Dr. Carney’s caution around PMMA is not theoretical. It comes from seeing and repairing these problems regularly.

None of this means your concerns are being dismissed. It means the early size you saw was not an appropriate baseline for judging final HA retention. The better question is whether you retained the expected foundational increase after the swelling resolved, based on your length, anatomy, and the volume placed.

Dr. Carney did recommend that you return for a follow-up evaluation if you want the result assessed in person and want to discuss the safest next step.

We know it’s frustrating when the early swelling looks like a dramatic gain and then settles. But based on the reaction you appear to have had, going straight to PMMA would not have been the safer choice in Dr. Carney’s opinion.

Rejuvall,

Thanks for the response. Per your earlier response to this thread I would have expected a direct response via phone number, however no worries. I was expecting to stay at 6 Flaccid, no lower than 5.75. It is hard for me to believe all that Girth was swelling, I am losing on average 1/4 Girth per month. With those loses no way it will last me 12 months. Please consult with Dr Carney on how much he charges for PMMA and I will make my decision on weather to do a follow up.

Hi @Thinkbig ,

I apologize for us not reaching out to you privately; since you posted your concerns publicly, I felt it was important to explain what's going on for everyone here in case they run into the same problem. Just as you said you just wanted to let everyone know what could happen, I felt it important to clear up this common misconception across the world of girth enhancement.

We completely understand why it may be hard to believe that much of the early girth was swelling, especially when the initial change was so noticeable. But that is exactly the concern Dr. Carney is pointing out.

The 6.25" measurement one week after injection was not a stable HA result. At that point, the tissue was still responding to the injection process, the product placement, and the inflammatory reaction. In a typical case, swelling begins settling much sooner. In your case, the degree of early size increase and the way it gradually came down over the following weeks suggest that your body had a more significant inflammatory response than average.

So from Dr. Carney’s perspective, this is not best understood as “losing ¼ inch of HA per month.” It is more likely that the inflammation/swelling has been slowly resolving, which makes the measurements appear to be dropping month by month.

That difference is important because HA and swelling are not the same thing. HA retention should be judged after the inflammatory phase has settled, not from the largest measurement taken shortly after treatment.

You started at 4.75" and are now reporting just under 5.5", which means you are still measuring roughly ½ inch or more above baseline, depending on exact measurement conditions. Given your above-average shaft length, that result is not inconsistent with the volume of HA placed. A longer shaft requires the filler to be distributed over more surface area, so the same number of syringes will produce a smaller circumference increase than it would in a shorter shaft.

That is also why Dr. Carney is concerned about moving straight to PMMA. PMMA is not just “longer-lasting HA.” It works through a stronger, more permanent foreign-body/collagen response. If your tissue showed this much inflammatory response to HA, then PMMA could carry a much higher risk of firmness, nodules, granulomas, contour irregularity, prolonged inflammation, or a repair situation.

Regarding pricing, PMMA cost depends on the plan, amount needed, candidacy, and whether Dr. Carney believes it is medically appropriate after evaluation. We would not want to quote a PMMA plan in a forum thread based only on photos and measurements, especially given the reaction you appear to have had.

The best next step would be a follow-up evaluation so Dr. Carney can assess the tissue in person, confirm what is swelling versus retained product, and discuss whether PMMA is actually advisable in your case.