I'll gladly get their stance on the topic. I do know in the little time I touched on FFT
, they were focused on the survival of the fat implant, indicating they were more interested in low-to-modest volumes increasing the likelihood of sufficient vascularization (and thus the longevity of the filler).
I'd like for them to clarify this position as well as have it reflected in their marketing. It could have been a marketing and/or semantics decision, akin to Bellafill
) claiming to be long-lasting as opposed to permanent, when we all know it's permanent. You have to keep in mind that their work was largely based around non-fat fillers like Ellanse
as well as other procedural work like Peyronie's, Fat pad lipo, and scrotal webbing. Fat transfer is a viable option, but perhaps not as ideal as the aforementioned fillers. This may be why it's being pushed - but make no mistake, I'm going to have them answer this for the forum community and clarify their position.
They were submitted a new round of Q&A questions to be returned to me in the near future for forum publication, and I'll be sure to add this question to the next batch in the coming weeks.
And like Hoddle pointed out, their work with other fillers and procedures have often yielded positive results and their Clinic is a reputable Urology