TOPIC: Infections, Complications, Risks of PMMA?

From reading those articles, it seems that if one wanted they could just accept the granulomas and not suffer any health risks because of them. My biggest concern with PMMA has always been that it might have to be removed and then there is a high risk of Necrosis leading to loss of the shaft skin, which would be uttelry devestating. But if one can just leave the granulomas indefinitely, then why have surgery to remove them?

As someone who has experienced lumps in my penis from both fat and scar tissue I can tell you that it really isn\'t that terrible. I\'m not saying they didn\'t effect me, but that they are something one can live with and much less terrible complication than Necrosis. However, if they caused the penis skin to go red, as in some of those photo\'s then it would be a different story, as the penis would not be presentable and the skin would probably be sore. So, I\'m wondering if the redness only shows if the PMMA is injected into the skin as oppossed to below the fascia? My thinking is that if one has a red lump in the skin, it is going to visible, but if the red lump is below the skin, I\'m assuming the redness wont show through.

What I\'m saying about lumps in the penis not being that bad is hard to explain unless you\'ve actually experienced it. I\'ve currently got several lumps of thick scar tissue. I\'m assuming seeing as it\'s collagen it will feel similar to a granuloma. And to be honest, I have to feel around at times to even find it. Lastime posted the other day that his scar tissue feels like a leech stuck to the shaft of his penis. Mine is the same, but I seriously doubt anyone would be able to detect it unless they knew it was there. When I had fat lumps they were much more noticeable, but that was because the fat was soft and it contrasted with penis, makig it more obvious to touch. But I\'m assuming granulomas would be much firmer, like scar tissue. Dr C says he hasn\'t had any granulomas when injecting below the fascia, but I\'m now wondering if that is the case, or that his patients simply aren\'t aware they have developed granulomas. I guess much of this depends of the shape and size of the granuloma, but from my experiecne, many of those shown in the photos in Dr Lemperle\'s article, wouldn\'t be such a big deal in the penis and certainly not worth the risk of surgical Removal.

@hoddle

I can relate to your viewpoint: for me, if granulomas don\'t have to be removed and don\'t hurt, then I would not have problems with them having produced a few lumps here and there on the shaft.

There is a paper written by Dr. Almir Nacul (the father of pmma blunt micro-cannula bioplasty and Dr.C. learned from him this technique as far as I remember) he replied to Dr. Salles\'s paper about the 32 cases , he mentioned :-
He used PMMA since 1992, more than 5000 patients, he said in the last 6 years the rate of nodules and FBG is 0.01% for Newplastic (this statement is what we are looking for 0.01% FBG with an experienced doctor).
It is safer to use PMMA in the deeper plane than in the superficial ones ( this is another paper which mentioned injecting PMMA in a deeper plane is better than superficial plane).
In conclusion :- Newplastic has 0.01% a chance of FBG under an experienced doctor.
journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/fulltext/...methacrylate.79.aspx

i have a question that might be already covered int he old forum, if it is the case i apologize.
I was reading about injectable silicone and that many women that had it developed conditions such as: rheumatoid arthritis, dermatomyositis, severe joint and muscle pain, incapacitating fatigue, swollen lymph glands, skin problems, peripheral numbness, multiple allergies, headaches, hair loss, sunlight sensitivity, central nervous system disorders (similar to multiple sclerosis), and others.
Does PMMA can cause them aswell? or it is limited just to silicone ?

I wonder how they removed it, and if there were complications removing it?

He never said who the other doctor was, just a patient who previously had the procedure with someone else. According to Wade, the guy wanted it out because he realized he had way too much used and his girlfriend didn\'t want to go near him. He didn\'t mention any complication.

@eqstudent
Thanks for clarification on my question.
@Skeptical One et al.
Here are two seemingly contradictory posts on whether Dr. C. would inject Artefill:
Subject: question about pmmaReplies: 4Posted By: swampmanViews: 113 After reading the thread about PMMA and concerns. I spoke to mr wade in regards to using artefill he said they can not use it in the penis, due to the collagen based vehicle.
he said however they can use metacril (sp) in place of newplastic, its about 400 /cc
any advice would be helpful... aesthetics is important but i would love to hear opinions on which seems to be a more safer PMMA

Subject: Sizemic\'s PE and PMMA logReplies: 119Posted By: Dd71Views: 4,059 @EQ&SIZE I spoke to wade yesterday and they are becoming adamant about only using 10% concentration. They say that they dont want to stray from making it anenhancement as oppossed to an enlargement. They want patients to be content with having a heavier penis with less retraction.

On a diffrent note I spoke to wade about my concern with New Plastic vs. Artefill. He said they had a 3rd party Dr study all the PMMA avaliable in the open market. This dr is from the US (Florida) and does most of his work on HIV patients for facial reconstruction. He did a blind study on all the materials and his conclusion suggested new plastic is nearly as pure as artefill. He is sending me the drs info today, when I recive it I will share it with the forum. I asked wade if one were to want artefill regardless, would Dr.C Use it/ or even be familiar with it. He said that Dr. C is familiar with it and would use ANY PMMA the patient wanted. But he still strongly suggested that it is unessasary to be frivolous being that new plastic was nearly its equal. I mean, im sure they could profit using artefill marking patients up on the product(Artefill) So IMO they honestly belive that New plastic is not inferior to artefill.

It could be Dr. A. Carruthers is using Silicon injection because it has a less serious complication or less frequent???? from FBG formation than PMMA :-
www.realself.com/question/are-silkion-10...used-butt-augmentati
They have mentioned FBG after silicon oil injection would be nearly impossible to treat.
The adverse effects of liquid silicone injections :- have included movement of the silicone to other parts of the body, inflammation and discoloration of surrounding tissues, and the formation of granulomas (nodules of granulated, inflamed tissue).
So Dr. A. Carruthers think silicon oil injection is safer than PMMA as a volume enhancer

---

> so could it be better to use it in penile injection instead of PMMA
@eq- you have said (( If you don't believe that granulomas is a serious complication just say so and move on.))

IMO if a complication like e.g. a foreign body granuloma from any filler is a serious complication --->e.g. from using the temporary filler (e.g. Hyaluronic acid) and esp. permanent fillers ---> so that mean the whole world should stop using them ???

Are we smarter than FDA in regard of FBG (as a serious complication ??)(e.g in Artefill which has the lowest chance of FBG formation but even that FBG had happened with Artefill) if it is so serious and untreatable would they give the Approval ??? Wouldn\'t we think they would remove it from the market if FBG was so serious ??

Everything on this forum makes me sooo torn haha. I don\'t know if I want to do it based off the lack of knowledge of long term effects but I do want to based on what results others have had. Ahhhh.

comingfromwi wrote: Everything on this forum makes me sooo torn haha. I don\'t know if I want to do it based off the lack of knowledge of long term effects but I do want to based on what results others have had. Ahhhh.

When in doubt, choose against proceeding with any elective procedure. Hasty decision-making in the past has usually been more often negative than positive.
I probably can\'t reiterate it enough, and I know many others have chimed in, but the benefit/risk trade-off should be carefully analyzed before a decision is made.
I don\'t mean to come off sounding like I\'m telling you what you should or shouldn\'t do, but your expression of being \"torn\" forced me to speak up, because I know such sentiments can\'t belong to someone who is fully prepared for what lies ahead. You\'ll have to come to terms one way or the other (for or against).
Good luck buddy! Stay tuned on the forum, you\'ll begin to feel more and more confident about your decision (to go or forgo) with PMMA in due time.

How much more would procedure with artefil cost than np?
If it lowers the risk ten folds it might be worth it. Is it so expensive to purify the product from micro particles? why the don\'t make np so pure?

If Dr.C has used np on penises for 6 years some of his patients should (according to statistics of the af study) have formed FBG\'s and some would have formed fbg\'s that need to be surgically removed.

Or maybe he has not had that many patients yet ... or fbg\'s might form later?

Who knows. Thank\'s for great input fellas!

@Jec

Dr C. does NOT offer Artefill for penis bioplasty. He uses it for the treatment of other body parts (face, etc). Reason: Artefill contains bovin collagen whereas his PE technique is based on water carriers.

So far, no patient treated by Dr C. for PE via PMMA has required surgical Removal of the product.

Thanks for that tidbit supa!

Interesting stuff EP. Wade clearly told me in May that surgical Removal has never been required. He was referring to PMMA injections to the penis performed by Dr C. (so, not patients treated elsewhere and coming to see Dr C. for advice/help). The only explanation is that the case you are referring to occurred after my conversation with Wade.

EP and Supa--
Wade told me that a patient who previously had something along the lines of 100ccs of PMMA injected from another doctor had come to Dr. Casavantes to have it removed.