Hey there guys! I am a long time lurker, who finally joined. After reading the forums, I noticed that HA augmentation seems to have a much lower conversation rate than PMMA and other modalities. I’m trying to figure out why. I am a physician who specializes in aesthetics and Male Enhancement. I won’t mention my name or practice, as Its not fair to there are physicians who are sponsored here. I’m just generally interested. I personally won’t do PMMA due to possible nodules, scar tissue and possible retractions. Just not worth risk when HA carries none of these. And best of all it’s temporary. The penis is the last place I would want anything permanent. Very dynamic and age related changes may reveal aesthetic issues that weren’t evident years before. With HA, pts come in, get the procedure and come back for a touch up once a year or so for as long as they want. It seems like it would be getting a lot more attention here.
Also……I tell everybody partner I’m with that I have had a penis augmentation. They all think it’s the coolest thing ever….”wow I didn’t know that was possible”. I see a lot of guys on here almost ashamed to be discovered. It’s obvious when women have had their breasts done…..no shame there. Same here. Seems guys here put a lot of work into their penis……they should be proud of it when it’s done. Lol.
Anyways, any thoughts on why HA isn’t more popular here?
I noticed the same,
I think the main reason could be that people, once they feel ready, just prefer to make something that last, rather than going back every year or so to fill it over and over again, probably due to repetitive costs over the years.
Even if many people here had positive experience with PMMA, I'm not as brave, so I'll certainly go for HA.
Apart from being reversible in any case, I also heard that after the 2-3rd top-ups the enhancement become more lasting, so maybe you don't really need to add filler every year or every 18 months like in the beginning: in some cases i've heard of people who retained almost 100% after more than 2 years after the last top-up.
I wouldn't say HA is underrated - only in that it has just begun to trend more recently. The topic was largely dominated by PMMA because of its permanence, but there is a market out there for those who desire long-term temporary, easy-to-reverse, and relatively safe filler options, hence HA.
I disagree with your assertion against permanency in the penis. I'm a decade thick and have nothing but happy experiences. Granted, everyone's mileage may vary.
I’m glad you’ve had a good experience. Permanent things are great when they go as they should, and a trainwreck when they don’t. This board is a testament to that. Lol. As long as the patient knows the risks upfront, and can make an informed decision, then it’s all good. I’m just more conservative as a provider.
I do see the problem from a cost perspective…..it’s expensive. It’s unfortunate, because it doesn’t have to be. Quality filler from Europe and asia comes in 10cc quantities for 1/2 of the cost of 1cc filler in US. Which is why filler is routinely used over there for large volume augmentation of buttocks, breasts etc. unfortunately, there are no FDA approved fillers in the us in quantity of more than 1cc, thus preventing it from being used in a cost effective manner. Very enlightening conversation.
Bellafill is PMMA but has subtle differences in the carrier compared to the PMMA commonly referred to on this board. I know some people use it alone, possibly mixed with Renuva (fat). I haven’t seen enough results to render a judgment, so I would approach it with the regard as other PMMA treatments at this time. It is a permanent filler, not at all like HA
Beebermd wrote: Bellafill is PMMA but has subtle differences in the carrier compared to the PMMA commonly referred to on this board. I know some people use it alone, possibly mixed with Renuva (fat). I haven’t seen enough results to render a judgment, so I would approach it with the regard as other PMMA treatments at this time. It is a permanent filler, not at all like HA
True, however, the bovine carrier isn't a subtle difference. If anyone follows enough PMMA progress reports long enough, they'll know that the window of post-op recovery is crucial to the success (aesthetically-speaking) of one's own PMMA outcome. Most of these reports are based on PMMA with cellulose carriers, as opposed to Bellafill's bovine carrier.
The big difference is in the reabsorption of the carriers; cellulose takes days whereas bovine takes weeks. This means a longer window of recovery, which means a greater likelihood of aesthetic irregularities (i.e. nodules, bumps, ridges, etc.).
Avanti Derma, the leading Clinic on PMMA implantation (world-wide), stresses the necessity of post-op molding & massaging of your unit after the procedure, to ensure an aesthetic & "natural-looking" outcome.
Why Bellafill is offered and alternative PMMA brands (with cellulose carriers) aren't? Suneva (American Company) holds the patent on the PMMA Dermal Filler in the U.S., so it can only be sold and used off-label within the states. This also explains why it can be cost-prohibitive, and why many practitioners will mix it with other fillers to reduce the overall cost.
In a nutshell, Bellafill will give you Girth, but you're prone to a higher chance of aesthetic irregularities (which imply multiple corrective procedures). Considering the fact that Avanti Derma recommends multiple follow-ups, I'm afraid Bellafill alone is far from ideal in its current iteration.