TOPIC: It's pmma or nothing ?

Revised my post above: I rank the options from a risk/cost/result satisfaction perspective: Procedure: ranks the risk of the actual procedure as low, medium, or high. Risk short: ranks the short term risk which I define as < 180 days.Risk mid: ranks the medium term risk which I define as < 3 years.Risk long: ranks the short term risk which I define as >3 years.Cost: ranks the total cost of the procedure. < $5K is low, $5K to $10K is medium > $10K is highResult: ranks the satisfaction with the outcome from my perspective. This is totally subjective based on my standard which is does the unit look or feel like 'something' has been done to it. Product procedure Risk short Risk mid Risk long Cost ResultFFT medium low low low medium goodArtefill low low medium medium medium NANewPlastic low medium medium high low goodAlloderm high high low low high goodBellaDerm high high low low high excellentRepriza high high low low high NADermal high high low low high poorElist high high medium low high poorScaffold very high high low low high poor Key PointsSurgical procedures are always ranked as high especially if general anesthesia is required. IIRC the risk of death from general is 1 in 50,000! I have ranked the short term risks of the allografts, dermal graft, and scaffolds has high due mainly to the risk of infection and the risk of the grafts. After that the risks are extremely low. The Artefill medium and long term risks are ranked as medium due to the incidences of long term granuloma formation. The Newplastic short term risk is ranked medium due to lump granuloma formation. IIRC 2 members out of our small sample size have had to be treated with anti-inflammatory steroids and anti-inflammatory plus 5FU which is an anti cancer drug. The Newplastic long term risk is ranked high based on 2 studies including the article titled 'The Polymethylmethacrylate Effects on Auricle Conchal Cartilage: Report of 21 Cases' by Caldellas et al which showed phagocytosis in all 21 patients and some tissue degeneration and mild skin reaction in one patient.Those are my thoughts. I welcome comments and opinions from other members. EDIT 7-20-11: changed FFT procedure to medium risk to account for the required liposuction.

Skeptical One wrote: ...I call it inconclusive because a member mentioned there was an undisclosed report (undisclosed to us, at least) which implied the purity of New Plastic being a lot more similar to Artefill than contended by the previous articles that have been discussed on this forum...

So a member has the old 'double secret study' which he can't share because he would have to then us?

Not sure how legitimate or authentic the suggested undisclosed study is, but I am giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. I will see Dr. C very soon and will have a discussion regarding this matter (New Plastic vs other brands, purity, etc), hopefully he\'ll clear up whether or not the study exists and what the study concludes.

If someone has study which is from a respected peer reviewed medical journal like the others that have been posted and quoted then it is authentic, IMO.

Eq I haven\'t seen many FFT results but from what I\'ve heard it\'s hard to see how the results can be as good as PMMA.

Also it\'s interesting you rank alloderms results higher than PMMA, have you seen many post op alloderm pics ?

@mikehok - you make a very good point. I have not seen many Erect FFT or alloderm pics but have seen numerous flacids. I will change my result ratings.